In plain terms
You can hinder a satellite the way you hinder an opponent on Earth: jam its link, blind its camera, hack its computers — or shoot it down. The heavier the means, the harder it is to undo and the more visible it is.
In practiceIn the war in Ukraine you mainly see the "soft" side: GPS jamming, jamming of satellite terminals and a cyber attack on a satellite network. Actually destroying a satellite has so far only happened as a test — leaving thousands of fragments that will circle for years.
| Category | Examples | Reversible? | Attributable? | Space debris? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinetic — from the ground (DA-ASAT) | Missile that hits a satellite | No | Yes (launch visible) | A lot |
| Kinetic — co-orbital | Satellite that approaches another and hits or damages it | No | Usually | Possibly |
| Non-kinetic physical | Laser (dazzling), HPM, nuclear detonation in space | Dazzling yes; damage no | Varies | Laser: no; nuclear: indirectly |
| Electronic | Jamming and spoofing of uplinks and downlinks | Yes | Difficult | No |
| Cyber | Hacking ground stations, terminals or the satellite itself | Often | Very difficult | No |
Key point
The reversible, hard-to-attribute means (electronic and cyber) are used most: they deliver effects without escalation and without debris. The destructive means are above all a deterrent — and a risk to everyone in space.