Besides, SpaceX could launch more sats to even lower orbits (where they wouldn't last long just due to atmospheric drag) during a conflict -- enough to win, then we can figure out how to get all that debris cleared out.
The West is destroying third world countries to take their human resources. Blowing up the middle east created more uber eats drivers than defunding all the schools in Detroit ever did.
The American advantage in launches would get narrowed within ten years. China only needs to be able to get their own constellation up; they don't need to keep SpaceX levels of launch cadence.
American technological superiority is overblown. The only reason we’re ahead is because of immigration. As China/other countries get wealthier and the US gets less friendly, smart people stay home. One generation later and the best scientists will in those countries, not here.
I think the issue is that one side having an overwhelming non-nuclear, conventional advantage might push the other to a nuclear response in the event of a catastrophic loss in a conventional conflict. Imagine Chine tries to invade Taiwan and they are defeated so badly that the CCP might fall -- then perhaps a nuclear response becomes more likely.
However, I think this is not the case. In the end no one wants to reduce the world to ashes over losing power. But... well, I suppose there are people crazy enough to want that.
reply