The Moon was only a celestial muse for poets and philosophers for thousands of years, until the US and the Soviet Union turned it into a battleground for space domination in the 20th century.

Come 2025, the Moon has become a frontier for a new kind of race: one for harnessing energy sources.

The US, China, and Russia are vying to establish nuclear power plants on the lunar surface, promising to fuel future bases, mining operations, and even permanent human settlements.

But as these world powers prepare to harness the Moon’s potential, one question looms large: could these nuclear outposts spark territorial claims, threatening the quiet peace of space?

The idea of nuclear power on the Moon sounds like science fiction. But it’s closer to reality than most people think. The Moon’s tough conditions – weak gravity and two-week-long “nights” – mean a reliable energy source is necessary for any long-term human presence.

Solar panels are of little use during the extended periods of darkness, and batteries last for a limited time only.

That leaves space explorers with the only option of nuclear power, whether through fission reactors that split heavy atoms into smaller ones, or fusion that combines small atoms into bigger ones to release massive energy.

Mark J Sundahl, director at the Global Space Law Centre at Cleveland State University, tells TRT World that nuclear reactors “can be used for interplanetary and orbital missions,” a capability that could extend to lunar bases.

But this technological leap comes with legal and geopolitical baggage.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the cornerstone of space law, is clear: no nation can claim ownership of the Moon or any celestial body.

“The treaty doesn’t prohibit nuclear power plants. It only bans nuclear weapons,” AJ Link, an adjunct professor of space law at Howard University, tells TRT World.

This leaves room for nations to build reactors, but the treaty’s prohibition on “national appropriation” is meant to stop any country from staking a permanent claim to lunar territory.

Yet, as Sundahl notes, the placement of a nuclear reactor on the Moon will not affect the fundamental principle of the treaty prohibiting “national appropriation” of any celestial body.

After all, worldly powers seizing parts of the Moon and asserting sovereign rights can potentially lead to space wars of catastrophic order. 

Imagine a lunar landscape dotted with nuclear outposts, each controlled by a different nation. These facilities could power mining operations for rare resources like helium-3, a fuel for clean fusion energy.

The Moon’s surface is rich in helium-3, a rare element on Earth. In fact, helium-3 is often cited by the space community as a major reason to return to the Moon. Analysts say that the Trump administration might push for fusion reactors to tap this resource.

The new space race

What happens when a nation’s nuclear plant sits on a prime patch of helium-3-rich regolith, a layer of unconsolidated solid material covering the Moon’s bedrock? 

The temptation to control that area can possibly lead to claims of exclusivity.

Ilyas Golcuklu, head of the department of private international law at Altinbas University in Istanbul, calls this the “new space race”. 

“Space being the common province of all humankind should not be limited to usage by a few developed countries to conduct aggressive militarisation,” he tells TRT World.

Unlike the Cold War era when the US and the Soviet Union competed for technological prestige, the current space race involves not just big nations but also private corporations, like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin.

“Private companies will likely dominate the lunar nuclear race,” Link says, noting that the space treaty holds nations responsible for their companies’ actions.

It means that if a US company builds a reactor on the Moon, the US government will eventually be liable for any mishaps under the UN Liability Convention.

This was tested in 1978 when a Soviet satellite, Kosmos 954, crashed in Canada, scattering radioactive debris. The Soviet Union paid millions in compensation, a precedent that underscores the risks of nuclear activities in space.

The Artemis Accords, a series of non-binding arrangements between the US and other countries that outline the norms expected to be followed in outer space, add another layer of safeguards.

These accords allow for “safety zones” around lunar facilities to protect operations. “The precedent of exclusionary zones or ‘safety zones’ has already been established by the Artemis Accords,” he says. 

“(But) the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is currently discussing what resource rights will look like in space,” he adds.

If a nuclear plant requires a safety zone, could it evolve into a de facto claim over the surrounding resources? 

Golcuklu says that nations might “advertise” their reactors as serving “all humankind” while quietly pursuing national interests.

“Claiming rights over nuclear plants on the Moon or other celestial bodies does not seem improbable in the future, unfortunately,” he says.

This is despite the fact that the Moon Agreement, a multilateral supplement to the space treaty, aims to keep the Moon free of weapons. “The Moon Agreement bans almost all military installations,” Golcuklu says.

But the line between civilian and military use is blurry. A nuclear reactor powering a lunar base could also support strategic operations, like satellite communications or reconnaissance. 

“Militarisation in space will always threaten international cooperation,” Link says.

Many nations have expressed fear that powerful countries could dominate space, leaving smaller nations sidelined.

Golcuklu says developing countries may become less cooperative if big powers use space as if it were their national land.

Lunar nuclear flashpoints  

The Moon Agreement’s environmental provisions – like avoiding “forward contamination” – meaning the transfer of contamination from Earth to the Moon – lack teeth due to limited adoption. “The Moon Agreement isn’t very enforceable,” Link says.

A nuclear accident on the Moon could scatter radioactive material, rendering large areas unusable. The high clean-up cost of the Kosmos 954 incident shows that the consequences of any environmental mishap on the moon could be a lot worse.

The involvement of private companies exacerbates such fears. SpaceX’s reusable rockets and Blue Origin’s lunar expeditions make them key players in the space industry. 

If a company like SpaceX builds a reactor, who will ensure it meets international standards? 

Of course, the space treaty requires state oversight. But as private actors gain influence, nations like Türkiye may demand robust space laws to manage disputes, says Golcuklu.

Analysts say the lunar nuclear race could also reshape space law. “Recent developments might lead to new interpretations,” Golcuklu warns, particularly around territorial claims. 

If nations push for resource rights tied to nuclear outposts on the Moon, the space treaty’s ban on territorial claims could be tested.

Link doubts a full reinterpretation of space law is imminent, as current laws allow lunar bases without claiming territory.

Yet the longer-term risk is clear: Nuclear outposts could become flashpoints, especially if helium-3 becomes a game-changer for fusion energy. 

With the number of potential nuclear outposts rising, the temptation to claim a piece of the Moon – in the name of either safety zones or resource rights – may grow as well.

“Sustainable access to space must benefit all humankind,” Golcuklu says.