Musk once said that, in that case, the country's leaders could "shake their fists impotently at the sky". Which is imho the right answer.
Space as a shared resource (as opposed to e.g. airspace) only works if countries (and corporations) respect each others sovereignty.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so I'm probably missing your point. Can you clarify?
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-official-warns-r...
Shoot down every one that passes over country X? Hope you've got a few thousand antisatellite weapons, and you're willing to burn them on this...
Also, the countries most likely to do something this stupid are the ones the US government is giving him permission to defy, particularly Iran or Russia. If something happens, it will be more on the US government than SpaceX.
Why would it be one satellite? Many countries consider LEO sovereign airspace. And there would be international cover from countries like China and Russia.
If potting sats becomes normalised it ceases to be something that can be privately financed.
There's not only Starlink in LEO. Some of the existing constellations there are safety-of-life relevant (e.g. Iridium for polar flights or shipping routes), and Iridium doesn't have a stockpile of spares sitting on launchpads for an "Elon poked the bear one too many times" scenario.
Iridium is only useful in safety-of-life because it's too expensive for anything else. If SpaceX were that bad at creating a market for satellites no one would be trying to shoot their satellites down.
On the other hand, I also think that some *ground* safety systems will rely on satellite data links as a back-up, as well.
So it does seem like some debris making it into higher and lower orbital shells is quite likely.
It's not difficult for a state level entity to create problems for his businesses.
Everywhere else it makes much more sense to get permission to operate (vs. trying some pirate operation where Starlink is treated like a contraband that needs to be illegally imported into the country, the payments must happen stealthily, you get no support etc.).
Or local businesses as they are sometimes known
But there is a good point and pattern to notice here, that further consolidation into a global companies providing internet access put resources and power into even fewer hands, but now that power is no longer being held by potentially authoritarian politicians and their Gestapo.
The solution for that means requiring multiple satellite internet providers, and people paying attention always to prevent a critical mass or majority of them from capture by bad actors - which we know happened with MSM consolidation, as well as more recently with social media platforms all illegally colluding with the US government - exposed due to Elon buying Twitter-X and releasing the Twitter Files.
But what point were you trying to make? That Starlink is bad for local economies because people are paying a non-local company?
It's certainly a good way to suppress local infrastructure development, yes
Do you have a source for this?
Inmarsat is the only exception for phones.