> if even achievable with current technology

Launching a nail bomb into orbit would've been possible as soon as we were able to get into space, the only question is motivation. A terrorist state, say North Korea, threaten the rest of the planet and demand concessions once they're able to get any significant mass into orbit.

I'd say intentionally destroying space assets etc should be considered an act of war (compare attacking another nation's ship in international waters), NK wouldn't have a chance and they could be put into space lockdown where any launches are intercepted.

Good luck dragging people into war over space trash that doesn't even benefit most peoples' lives in any material sense.

Are you sure that you have never looked at a weather forecast (or received a severe weather warning), crossed an ocean in an airplane, used GPS (or another satellite-based navigation system, or eaten food farmed using precision automated equipment that does), which are just the first things coming to mind that would be much harder without satellites?

Do you really think people will want to go to war to protect America's hegemony of gps?

I believe the US would almost certainly go to war if there were an intentional attack on GPS.

The us goes to war if someone sneezes.

It is even worse than the analogy, because every bit of mass from that sunken ship becomes drifting naval mines.

I think it would be actually the other way around - Starlink orbits aee low enough to be self cleaning & Starlink satellites can be (and are) rapidly replenished. So even if something from up above hits anfew, the debris would deorbit soon & new ones could be launched.

With GEO sats, unless you go for direct GEO insertion, it might still have issues reaching the final orbit. And even at GEO, there could be a debris cloud as well causing issues, at least until the sun and moon gravity perturbs it enough.

- "And even at GEO, there could be a debris cloud as well causing issues, at least until the sun and moon gravity perturbs it enough."

Not a satellite expert, but I understand GEO clears out relatively fast (~decades), because of those 3-body perturbations,

https://www.agi.com/blog/2020/07/geo-satellites-don-t-decay-...

Your link talks about how this is an unexpected result, and only occurs at specific inclinations.

It's new information to me, though. Thank you.

On the other hand, there is just so much less stuff up there, as reaching that orbit is much more expensive in terms of energy expenditure, and it's all moving in pretty much the same direction and in the same orbital plane.

So unless somebody maliciously launches e.g. a bunch of ball bearings in the same orbital plane but opposite direction, the chances of "wrecking GEO" seem much lower (although the consequences would, as you say, probably be much more severe and long-term).

The approximate-GEO belt involves far fewer satellites than projected megaconstellations, in a far larger volume of space, travelling at far lower orbital velocities, with a much tighter orbital plane distribution (so even lower relative velocities). Their orbital planes intersect every 12 hours instead of every 0.75 hours.

Targeted space junk disposal in GSOs appears to be quite practical. The easiest major orbital changes for an SEP stage to burn, structurally, involve lowering periapsis from high orbit.