If you start shooting down stuff in orbit, it'll invite retaliation, but even without retaliation there's a huge risk of a Kessler syndrome (especially with all the stuff that SpaceX has put into orbit in recent years).
I've heard this repeated a lot but I've never seen anyone do the maths. StarLink satellites are all in very low orbits, so intuitively it seems like most debris from a collision would just end up deorbiting.
I've definitely seen math done - though I'd have to dig it up again. I think in FAA filings.
The best sources that I can find say that Starlink sats orbit around 550 km above Earth. By all accounts, this distance is well within Low Earth Orbit definitions. However, you used the term "very low earth orbits". I never heard before and needed to research it. It is a neologism from 2017 and does not seem to have a precise definition. Most uses indicate less than 450 km above Earth.
The International Space Station flies around 400 km above Earth.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09643
[2] https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
A little nudge doesn't do much, it's still a satellite in a substantially similar orbit. Any sort of nudge requires intercept, go up there and match its velocity so you can grab it and push. And still you have to push on it a whole lot to make a meaningful difference. Spin it up? You'd have to do enough to exhaust it's fuel it uses to orient itself.
You're sort of saying if you can chuck an apple hitting a car on the highway, surely you can tow it away to get it off the road. They're significantly different problems.
>A missile intercept for explosions or a kinetic destruction the relative velocity will be measured in kilometers per second.
The satellite will also be going kilometers per second. You have to almost match the orbital velocity to have a chance of hitting it anyway.
It is indeed not that hard to intercept something in orbit. Because the orbits don't change and can be predicted to high precision months in the future.