[ExpertAdvisor01]

Because they will be destroyed immediately

[nine_k]

To shoot something down at 70,000 ft (21 km) all you need is a conventional military jet fighter, and a long-range rocket, or even a MiG-31 with a conventional cannon. At best you can make these birds cheaper than the rocket + flight time.

Something that flies at the upper edge of the stratosphere, at 40-50 km (160,000 ft) would be hard to reach with currently available means. You can of course fire a THAAD at it, but you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.

[pacificmint]

> you can fire a THAAD at a Starlink satellite as well.

You can fire a THAAD at one Starlink satellite, but probably not at 8000 of them.

For comparison we’re currently producing THAAD interceptors at a rate of 96 a year (though Lockheed is aiming to increase it to 400).

[nine_k]

Exactly; it's a limited and very expensive capability. Nobody would want to spend it on a $100k stratospheric flying vehicle, if the latter existed. It does not exist though, if you do not count weather balloons.

[ExpertAdvisor01]

The f-22 balloon kill was at the same height as the altitude quoted on their website .

Like you said either any fighter jet + missile or an high altitude jet + auto cannon will shoot it down reliably.

This is probably a good solution for redundancy if you already have air superiority.

[The_President]

They won’t be shot down over land without debris falling to the ground.