"they can burn unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the air at a relatively low cost, compared with shooting them down with bullets or artillery." [relatively low cost]
The explicit cost comparison frames laser intercept as economically superior to kinetic methods, directly supporting the claim that the cost-exchange logic underpinning drone attrition warfare is being structurally challenged.
Reasoning from this article
Drone warfare's strategic appeal rests on forcing defenders to spend expensive interceptors against cheap attackers. Laser systems with low per-shot costs — essentially electricity — invert this calculus. The article's framing of cost efficiency as a primary selling point signals that militaries are explicitly designing around this economic dynamic, not just the technical one. If man-portable laser systems proliferate, the mass-drone saturation tactic used in conflicts like Ukraine-Russia loses its cost-asymmetry advantage, potentially reshaping offensive drone doctrine globally.