Let's break this question down into workable parts:

1. Would it be wise to have thrusters in place in case:

a. Global warming starts melting the Antarctic ice sheets, and pieces start breaking off raising sea levels throughout the world.

b. Those scanning the sky for space objects that threaten earth find such an object. Collision is predicted to be imminent and certain.

c. Glaciers start to grow and threaten to cover major cities with 20 feet of ice.

You and the other readers will ultimately decide the answer to this question. So far, everyone...that is without exception, every one that I have asked about it, said YES! It would be wise to have thrusters in place in case of any of these events. I haven't met a single person yet who thought that we should allow ourselves to be victims of these threats, if we have a viable alternative.

What is your take on it?

Given that our scientists discover a way to use thrusters, safely, predictably, and accurately to resolve any of the threats we face:

1. Do you think it would be wise to have thrusters in place, ready to use? and

2. Given that thrusters are in place, should we explore using them to do such optional things such as:

• Reduce the severity of the seasons

• Increase the amount of land that is arable and livable

Pick the answers that most closely describe your thoughts, feelings, or opinions: If two answers seem right to you, select both of them.

Send e-mail with your choices to shouldwe@thrusterproject.org