What is a space weapon, and who has them?

Not really, a weapon would be used to destroy it, what was done here,was crippling it, so they either need to send someone up there to clean it, or send it hurtling into space.

If you design a satellite that catapults rocks at their crappy hi-tech satellite is that weapon?

I will add a cyber perspective/analogy... If I execute a successful DDOS attack on a military mission system, did I use a cyber weapon? Folks in the Cyber Ops community might be inclined to say yes. For a more specific example, what if I were to break into and access the HVAC systems providing cooling to a critical system (on a separate but secure network), disable the cooling, and essentially heat up the critical system to the point it becomes disabled as well. Did I use a cyber weapon? Again, folks in the cyber ops community might be inclined to say yes. All of these tactics can be used in conjunction with a coordinated attack too. What's the difference between sending a kinetic capability to destroy a critical system outright vs taking it out through cyber? Same can be asked about space.

When it comes to weaponization of space, such as when we made such agreements with the USSR during the Cold War, I always understood it as weapons originating out of space. In other words, no such agreement was made for kinetic/non-kinetic weapons capable of attacking capabilities in space, originating from Earth. We know for a fact that certain nations were doing it or building the capability to do it. Also, the space-to-space issue is kind of hard to prove, since virtually every satellite with a seemingly harmless primary function can be provided the ability to "self-destruct," for the purpose of taking other nearby satellites out. Same goes for jamming and other non-kinetic capabilities. If and when a nation using such a capability chooses to do so, it's a little late at that point to call them on the illegal use of weapons in space, since they've already effectively gone to war. Otherwise, why do it? Unlike cyber, it is much easier to identify the source of the attack.

My opinion, and one that I think more countries can agree on, is to not weaponize space by defining it as space-to-earth Kinetic, and space-to-space kinetic (even though this one is hard to prove the capability until it's used). This isn't to say the other methods don't constitute weaponizing space, I just think we have to pick our battles. Also, many would argue the US already has those other capabilities now. At the same time, space is already militarized, as we and other nations use it for military communications, ISR, navigation, and early warning systems. In the event of a war, to believe an enemy is not going to consider, plan, or build a capability to disable those militarized assets in space is naïve. Regardless of whether they agreed to a treaty.