You don’t need 10k missiles. You need just one to blow up all of starlink satellites.

This is like bowling, you hit one, it hits the other one etcétéras.

Because Kessler syndrome means you don't need to hit all 10k yourself.

Lowering the orbits just means that we get back to normal faster, not that the it's impossible.

You could launch some missiles, blow a few satellites into smithereens, and gradually over the next few months they would take out the others. That's a poor kind of war weapon. An effective weapon is one where you can inflict damage continuously, and are able to stop immediately upon some concession. If you can't offer to stop in return for concessions, you won't get any.

Starlink has already been used in Russian's war against Ukraine. Of course the satellites can take photos as a bonus.

It's a massive spy network, if weaponized.

If it's WWIII, and you're using ballistic missiles against satellite constellations, then either:

- You are not targeting individual satellites; you're setting off nuclear warheads in space, and relying on the EMP to disable all satellites within a large radius of the blast - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse

or

- You're nuking the ground-based command & control centers for those satellites. Again, nothing like 10,000 missiles needed.

(Or both.)

To target 10,000 satellites directly, the "obvious" weapon would be a few satellite-launch rockets, lofting tons of BB's (or little steel bolts, or whatever) - which would become a sort of long-duration artillery barrage shrapnel in orbit.

What was that game on old PC's? ... Minesweeper ...