obviously it’s not as good as completely destroying the target, but it seems like it would be relatively easy to make them completely inaccessible for weeks or months at a time. and when you see them dragging out the heavy machinery to open it back up just hit ‘em again.
what are you talking about? the point is that denying access to a given site that is fixed in place with limited access points (by definition) is fundamentally different than completely eliminating a mobile, zero-infrastructure target.