I mean, if we have a war with Russia that involves destroying satellites, it seems like there is a pretty big chance that means it's going nuclear and we'll have bigger fish to fry.
Compare the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2: Germany was trying to destroy merchant shipping faster than the Allies could build it, and failed; not because the subs were hunted down (though they were) but because the US refocused a humongous amount of industrial policy on building Liberty ships in a matter of days per hull. That was a massive national mobilisation, it would have been impossible to do so for more than a handful of capital plants, and it certainly wasn't going to be maintained in peacetime.
Edit to add: Though to argue a bit against my own point, satellites are perhaps uniquely vulnerable, even to nonstate actors. Lasers get better all the time and a satellite inherently needs to pass over other countries to do its job. Much easier targets than, say, electrical grids which can be defended by the internal-security garrison.
It's pretty much what Iran is doing to the US now with their supply of mobile ballistic missiles and drones, but on a global scale with subs/etc... added to the mix.
After all, if America’s military thinkers all believe if America fought China it would inevitably result in mutually assured destruction - then American security guarantees for Taiwan lose all credibility.