SpaceX's launch capacity is an order of magnitude larger that all four of those put together.
replyWhich is irrelevant because offensive launches can destroy many orders of magnitude more launches worth of payloads. Even with simple kinetic means. Though these days I think I'd expect to see directed energy weapons adding even more zeros to that.
replyHave you done the math? "Many orders of magnitude" means, IMHO, at least three. A regular Falcon 9 carries 60 Starlinks IIRC, so three orders of magnitude means destroying 60 thousand at once.
replyWhat is the offensive launch that can destroy 60 000 satellites in one mission? I don't think it exists.
No idea about 60,000, but it's not impossible to make whole orbits unusable by launching piles of small junk.
replyIts will ruin it for everyone, but Russia or China is certainly able to do that.
The Starlink orbits are so low that stuff deorbits quite quickly withou active propulsion. So while this might work for a while, you woul need to replenish that junk for it to continue working, in all the many orbifs you would want to deny.
replyAn EMP from a high altitude nuclear detonation would do the trick.
replyyou do not need an orbital capable launcher to carry an anti-satellite weapons. Modified SAMs are sufficient.
replyYeah, but any of those attacking US satellites means an apocalyptic war, and the provenance of the attack would be clear. You cannot exactly hide a suborbital rocket launch.
replyEven in Russian nationalist circles, the occassional idea of shooting down current Starlink satellites is usually met with derision from the rest of the discussion group (see, for example, topwar.ru comments). That is just step too far, too dangerous.
Meanwhile, on Earth, you have a lot of plausible deniability. "Some terrorist group sneaked in and planted a bomb, totally not our people."