Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's essentially impossible for anyone to disable the Starlink network by "taking out satellites" through physical means. There aren't enough anti satellite missiles in the world to make a dent, it would cost trillions to manufacture enough, and SpaceX can launch satellites faster than anyone could manufacture interceptors anyway. And Kessler syndrome is impossible at the altitudes Starlink uses. Cyberattack is the o…
>>There aren't enough anti satellite missiles in the world to make a dent, it would cost trillions to manufacture enough Few big nukes are enough to take out all satellites.
Um, no. Not even vaguely remotely. "Thousands of satellites" is a lot by historical human space standards, but compare that to the number of cars you see every day and then remember these are spread out over an area bigger then the surface of the entire planet. Don't be fooled by the simulation maps you can find online, where the satellites and tracks are shown thousands of times bigger then they would be to scale because otherwise they couldn't be seen. They are very, very far apart. Even on the ground, "a few big nukes" wouldn't do diddly. And nukes do less, not more, damage in space. A lot of the damage enhancement effects of nukes comes from their interaction with atmosphere. In a vacuum, it's only direct radiation which falls by the square of the distance, and satellites are of course designed to handle plenty of thermal and ionizing radiation all the time already by virtue of being designed for space. But Starlink sats aren't so high that Kessler syndrome is a concern either, there's plenty of atmospheric drag to bring debris down without active boosting.
GP is correct and I don't understand the downvotes: as far as physical resilience goes the Starlink constellation is a pretty damn hard target on an absolute basis, even before we get into the geopolitics of some country trying to shoot down US property that is also a US strategic asset.