There are so many problems with you're rebuttal I'm not even sure where to start.
So, i'll start with the easy stuff. First off, Scuds can't shoot into space. They lack the fuel to get a payload that high, and their fuel type is standard rocket fuel. It'd stall long before it got anywhere close You'd need AT LEAST an ICBM to hurt a target in geosync orbit, but you'd require pretty much anything that can get that high to kill anything in an orbit(~70k kph realitive speeds are a pain on everything)
As for putting all the laser tech into a sub, you have a problem. In space, weight isn't an issue. My ship can be as big as I want it to be, so long as I can generate the thrust to move it. A sub has to be small enough its own weight doesn't crush it, and has to generate more thrust still, because it has to deal with the water around it on top of its own mass.
Second, firing a laser beam at a target around pluto is stupid, and isn't going to work. Earth is 1AU from the sun, and it takes ~8 minutes for light to reach us from there. Pluto is an average of 40 AUs from the sun, which means light takes over 5 hours to get there. That also means light has to travel 5 hours from pluto to your eyes so you can see it, and because of the travel time, you're looking at something 5 hours old. Where it's gone in the mean time is something you'll only know of 5 hours after it got there. Your laser beam also has to travel that 5 hours to reach the target, And I may be doing some 40k km per hour, which makes your life double hard. Where am I now, and where will I be when that laser actually arrives? You can see the problems. And to top it all off, I had 5 hours of look at you before you even SAW me. I know everything i need to know in that time.
Next up, assuming you have a solar powered death ray, why can't I just slap 2 nuke reactors and a propulsion unit to the same damn thing and have my own mobile death ray? Not only can match you're yeild, I can move mine from it's fixed orbit, but you're would have noticed mine right before the ray got there, so it's all a moot issue anyway. Not that you could hit me with all the travel times.
And lastly, defences are pretty easy to spot. They have these nice, distinct appearances from the air, and if a plane can tell a nuke silo from a corn silo, so can I. Just enter the profile into a computer, and let it do its thing. The process is like police computers getting finger prints.
But this does give some problems to both sides.
In the same way, your rebuttal has multiple flaws.
1. A weapon the size of a SCUD could feasibly reach several hundred kilometers of altitude. Similarly, a SCUD with a nuclear thermal rocket instead of a chemfuel booster would be capable of reaching higher altitude.
2. A spacecraft does have mass limitations. You can't build your lasership as big as you want, because otherwise when it starts moving, it will collapse under the stress of support it's own mass.
3. It's not stupid. It's simply not feasible in an efficient manner. It is possible, however.
4. Simple. A beamed power station is close to the Sun, providing abundant and cheap power. It arguably doesn't even need a propulsion unit; simply strap on a bunch of solar sails and fire the energy transmission units into the sails. Bam. Instant beamed propulsion system. Furthermore, from what I gather, you're saying that a spaceship powered by a pair of nuclear reactors (not a bad idea, mind you) and equipped with a drive system would be superior.
It wouldn't; such a system requires a much more robust logistics train, to supply nuclear fuel (when necessary) and propellant, as well as handling disposal of radioactive reactor materials. It also requires more maintenance, as keeping both reactors running at full power would be rather foolish, unless you need that much power, and have the means to radiate the waste heat.
5. Incorrect; a defensive system does not by default have a highly distinct appearance. Furthermore, just because it's easy to spot from 40,000 feet DOES NOT mean it's easy to spot at orbital altitudes. Additionally, just because you can see it doesn't mean you can strike it. In any scenario with interplanetary warfare, surface defenses WILL defeat an invading fleet of warships. It's quite simple, really.
A surface laser doesn't need to even rival or exceed a spaceship's laser; the surface emplacement can simply fire for much, much longer. This means it has a definite advantage. A planetary missile launcher also has missile manufacturing facilities and much larger stockpiles at the ready, and within much easier logistics distances than the orbiting warfleet.
Furthermore, the process is not like police computers getting finger prints. It's much, much harder. The highly cluttered surface of a planet means that defensive battery systems would easily be dispersable.
As an aside, there are people much more qualified than you or myself, who debate this sort of thing fairly regularly. Check rec.arts.sf.science, a Google group. The general consensus there is that surface defenses>orbiting warfleet, by a significant amount.