On 1 May 2007 10:39:34 -0700, in a place far, far away, Allen Thomson
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

So if a country wanted to claim the right to take what actions it
deemed fit against satellites that flew over its territory it would be
breaking new legal ground (and upsetting a lot of people), but not
violating any existing treaties. Particularly if the satellites in
question were generally recognized as carrying out missions
incompatible with the claimed security interests of the country.

I'm not sure what violating treaties has to do with it. It's not a
violation of a treaty to deliberately sink a ship or shoot down an
aircraft, but it's clearly an act of war.

Are you saying that if an aircraft carrier was uncrewed (a theoretical
possibility) that sinking it wouldn't be an act of war?

In practical terms, acts of war(*) are what people say they are at the
time and, more relevantly, are willing to act on. As a matter of
perception and practicality, sinking an unmanned carrier, particularly
one operating in claimed territorial waters of the sinker, would be
less provocative than sinking one full of sailors.

I agree, but "less provocative" != "unprovocative."