Final answer:
The debate on maintaining smallpox stockpiles versus eradication involves safety concerns and potential research benefits. Historically, smallpox had high fatality rates, and its reintroduction could lead to severe consequences for unimmunized populations. The decision impacts public health and ethical considerations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether smallpox should be entirely eradicated or if stockpiles should be maintained is complex, with potent arguments on each side. Eradication proponents argue that maintaining stockpiles poses a risk of accidental release or biological weapon use, while opponents of eradication suggest the virus could be invaluable for research or if a related pathogen emerges. Historically, smallpox had a devastating impact on populations without immunity, such as the Native Americans during European colonization. With no vaccination available, historical fatality rates were as high as 50% or greater, and if smallpox were to break out, the consequences would be catastrophic, disrupting societies and economies as seen in past pandemics.