I see your $99,000 missile and I raise you a $10 intercept.

Time for those laser-defenses to come up to speed.

Lasers have very limited applications, they have an inherent line of sight limits, and even the most powerful ship mounted lasers that can do like 50kW, take a minute to boil a kettle of water away, more if you wrap it in tinfoil.

And a shot might cost $10, the laser itself cost $$$, fits only in a cargo container, and requires crazy amounts of juice.

Meanwhile a simple AA gun needs none of those things and can kill things just fine.

At this point no one is talking about using lasers to defend against hyper-sonic missiles (at least not anywhere near the target). All of the current laser systems require being focused on the targets for some amount of time to "burn though", which means they are only suitable for lower-speed targets (drones, cruise missiles, and some low-level ballistics).

You would need to have significantly stronger lasers to try and "burn through" on something moving that fast.

For completeness I should mention that there was quite some work on trying to get laser defenses against ballistic missiles on their "boost" phase (when they were launching, so slow enough to track a point in the missile), for example George Bush's "Star Wars" defense system. These would have been space based (some of the testing involved mounting on 747s, but I don't think that was ever an end-goal), but never made it near production.

You think of laser as in star wars cutting light saber.

Actual lasers don’t do shit at those distances: it is used not to cut something in half but to blind, damage sensors, and what have you

Lasers will probably only be used for point defenses against drones which isn't useless but they aren't the cheap future panacea everyone seems to think.