[data_acquired]

+1 on this. Virtually all the sources interviewed are connected with the military or the government itself, which fits a propaganda model or at least a very one-sided view on the gravity of the threats. Not to say that the facts and incidents reported are false, but the framing of the narrative is problematic and missing key issues such as ---

1. To what extent are critical satellites already built to handle these threats?

2. How much of an offensive capability does the US already possess in terms of retaliation? [Edit : Seems like there are a ton of programs in existence already! How many more are actually needed?]

3. Are the views represented a minority or a majority view in the defense establishment?

4. Like [1], what do the JASONs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)) or other groups that do not stand to gain directly from a budgetary increase towards defending such attacks have to say on the opinions of the general quoted in the headline?

[jandrewrogers]

European governments were raising the issue of increasingly sophisticated attacks against their satellites earlier in the year, which makes it less likely it is pure propaganda (it might still be a budget shout though). The US is well-equipped for this, both defensively and offensively, but the frequency and severity of the attacks has been increasing by all accounts.

While not mentioned in the article, my understanding is that some of the current attacks are only quasi-reversible e.g. some appear to be specifically designed to cause satellites to waste all the fuel in their maneuvering thrusters, greatly shortening their service life.