> Not to mention that attacking US satellites would probably be an act of war.
These aren't US satellites. They're SpaceX satellites. An attack might still result in war since they're owned by an Oligarch, but that certainly isn't the default.
A little off topic, but about calling all super-wealthy people in America "oligarchs". That's just not true - if anything, they're plutocrats.
An oligarch is someone who was given their business by the government by force, often with murder and jail involved to the oppressed. Like Abramovich receiving state owned oil and steel companies. Musk built paypal, helped revive tesla, and built SpaceX using his own money as collateral. He didn't get handed NASA.
That's how the word is/was used by the Russians, but isn't really how it's used by the western media. Any Russian billionaire is called an oligarch; it's used as a substitute for plutocrat.
Musk, Bezos, the Koch brothers, Soros, and a few other billionaires are plutocrats, ergo, they are oligarchs.
Russia deliberately destroying satellites would be a heck of an escalation that would likely find retaliation in a mysteriously high failure rate of Russian spy satellite optics.
An "act of war" is whatever the executives in government deem it to be. Being a asset which the US is responsible for and regulates (for example, if China wants to complain about it, they have to go to US gov, not the private company) it wouldn't be unreasonable for to treat it as a US asset. Most space and companies tech operate under ITAR restrictions, so the government isn't just a passive regulator here.
These aren't US satellites. They're SpaceX satellites. An attack might still result in war since they're owned by an Oligarch, but that certainly isn't the default.