There is a rather large difference between countering a single rather wobbly, awkwardly guided nuclear weapon from somewhere like Iran or North Korea, and stopping the hail of missiles that the US, Russia, or even China and Israel, could unleash.
I am yet to be convinced that Iran would launch a weapon, given the destruction that massive retaliation would achieve. This argument is a little less convincing in the case of North Korea, as there is so little to destroy.
For a small power, a nuke is a doomsday weapon, but not a bad one for that. Basic function is to make the price of invading them potentially prohibitive.
__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea." Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881 QOTD
Yes, purely KE projectiles won't be bothered much by lasers, but they impose different limits; no terminal guidance, no explosive warhead, no over-the-horizon, need flat fast trajectories. So maybe future naval design will be cruisers etc with single giant linear accelerator railgun, or something of that sort. All a bit more Jutland than Midway.
Linear Mode
