I never said they fired a single type of missile. US missile defense systems are frankly not cutting edge and lag behind Russia and China, and will for multiple years.

Missile defense systems have significantly more existing infrastructure than exist for rocket launches. The question in wartime is ‘what capabilities are you getting rid of, and for how long?’ In the case of starlink, the question is complicated both by reaction to the creation of so much space trash and the piggybacked approach SpaceX has taken to get the satellites up there.

This is feasible. Again, I doubt it is the right satellite attack strategy, but it is not absurd.

This may be true for ground based anti-aircraft systems or maybe you're thinking of the recent buzz around anti-ship and hypersonic missiles. But for missile defense this is quite false. The Aegis system and THAAD are as good as it gets. US doctrine always focuses heavily on missile defense with the assumption that they would have air superiority for offense.

In the media they're primarily pitched as offensive weapons. However with China breaking the heat-seeking problem for hypersonic missiles they have very interesting defense implications. Midcourse interception becomes much less vaporware and much more feasible. Existing technology to neutralize missile defense (e.g. by launching a larger number of smaller missiles prior to terminal phase) are less viable with (marv) hypersonic missile defense systems.

I think we are in a two to three year periods where due to defensive capabilities there is an extreme asymmetry. I think consequently you will see Russia, China, and NK (who have likely been given advances here by China) become more aggressive.