On your first point, I stand partly corrected. Thanks for the details and especially those involving Starfish Prime. In my defense, I was referring mainly to th

On your first point, I stand partly corrected. Thanks for the details and especially those involving Starfish Prime. In my defense, I was referring mainly to the blast effects of nukes, which are indeed much weaker in a vacuum than they are in a terrestrial landscape since, obviously, there's no gas to transmit the destructive overpressure that causes most of the physical destruction at a distance that nukes are famous for. I also considered the possibility of satellites being hardened against EMP effects. However, I'd forgotten about the heat transmission caused by radiation or the destructive effects on electronics caused by said radiation. Still though, it would be a way of destroying satellites that would be damn expensive and damn hard to control precisely, which is why I still think a realistic scenario for some power destroying satellites would involve much simpler, smaller weapons. As for your last point, bear in mind that getting an object above the Karman line has been easy for a while now and isn't nearly the same as getting an object to have enough launch energy to stay in a stable orbit, or stay in orbit at all. Pulling that off would be much harder, and especially if you want to lob something as heavy as a nuke into space, and then have it travel enough distance in an orbital circuit to reach a specific part of the sky.