That's not really what the report is relying on. It's saying having a system of detections and interception satellites which can catch ~100 missiles forces the stakes to be more "all out or nothing" from large scale threats and "fully preventative" for small scale threats (e.g. North Korea). It also considers the satellite layer 1 of 3 layers that help achieve that small escalation prevention goal.
Nowhere does the report claim a Starlink type satellite layer would be or would need to be untouchable in a full scale WW3 scenario.
I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not.
Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.
