Even with a numerator-only view, I suspect it's not fair to characterize the "risk factor" as going up 300x. There's a lot more nuance about orbits in space.
Tell me the nuance then. If people have concerns about Kessler syndrome at the starlink scale then why wouldn't something literally 1000x bigger be even more concerning.
I already did. Your reply/edit merely repeated your prior observation.
Getting back to the point:
You literally claimed that one of these would "inevitabl[y]" trigger a Kessler effect with no proof.
> something literally 1000x bigger be even more concerning.
Again, this isn't convincing if you don't have the denominator/context. Think about it: you still can't answer how many of these are needed to trigger the Kessler effect.
BTW, "increase by a FACTOR of about 300" != "increase in a RISK FACTOR of over 300"
I know this in the same way that even though I don't know the exact credence to assign the probability of particular bad effects from global warming, I can confidently say that an increase by a factor of 1000 of the CO2 emissions would be a bad thing. This is not because I have done a simulation, but instead my beliefs are based on the assumption that while concerned experts might be wrong in the details, they are probably not wrong with a gap of 3 orders of magnitude.
> increase in a risk factor of over 300
Even with a numerator-only view, I suspect it's not fair to characterize the "risk factor" as going up 300x. There's a lot more nuance about orbits in space.