Why National Services? Sovereign state to Corporate State

 Why is there a need for National Service? Or why is there a need for a strong military force? And why is National Service called a sacrifice?

Historically country or nation state needed a defensive or offensive force to protect its territory and people or to attack another country to acquire land to expand its territory. Historically, nation states were quite homogenous, of one people.  Relationship between states was you or me, or you against me. The concept of invading another country to acquire wealth and slaves was taken for granted.  Today this is unacceptable and against international law and norms. But some rogue states still think it is their right, and some still hold on to their conquered land, under the pretentious lie of 'they found it' by planting their flags on the land. It was might was, and is still right, and countries can go around invading other countries to take over their land and everything in it, including the people. Some countries still practise this and needed a strong military force to invade and acquire land in deceptive ways, under fabricated excuses like fighting terrorism, liberation from autocrats or dictators, democracy and human rights violations.

For these same reasons, nation states need a strong military force to protect and defend themselves from such aggressors and potential enemies. Their land, people and resources when overrun, everything would go to the invaders, even their human rights to exist as free human beans. The victims or captives would be at the mercy of the invaders. Recent examples are Iraq, the Palestines, Kosovo, Pacific Islands, islands in the Indian Ocean, some African states, etc etc.

The concept of independent sovereign nation state is gradually being compromised when the meanings of nationhood and citizenship no longer have the same importance and relevance as in the past. People are migrating and taking on citizenship of another country quite freely and happily. And there are nation states that would be happy to bring in the best talents of the world to become citizens, in a way diluting their national core. Homogeneity, or one race, is no longer valued. Nation states can become multi cultural, multi racial and multi religious. A nation state can bring in mixed bags of foreigners to become citizens, and eventually the foreigners can become the majority and take over the state without the need for the consent of the original citizens.

In the past, when individuals of a country invited foreigners in, in a hostile takeover, it is treason. They were called traitors. In today's context, when foreigners are invited into a state, to become citizens of the state, and could take over the state if the numbers are big enough, it is seen as a benign migration policy. It is an economic expediency. It is a conscious choice, a national policy. Presumably this is for the good of country and people, everything done systematically, legally and peacefully. 

When a nation state is willing to bring in foreigners in large numbers, opening its doors widely and freely, the meaning of a defensive military force becomes meaningless in a way. There is no enemies anymore. The country and everything in it can be shared with foreigners turned citizens. The nation state can belong to anyone allow in as residents.

When this becomes an acceptable norm, does nation state still have any meaning? Is there still a place or a need for a military force to defend the country? Is there a need for National Service? What is there to defend when everything can be shared with foreigners turned citizens? It is like whatever is mine is yours, and whatever is yours is yours, as many countries would not share their country and wealth with foreigners. And for the latter, their citizens now residing in some willing states can own and share what is in the willing states, including the land and national reserves acquired over generations. 

Can a new term be coined to define such a situation? A sovereign state becomes a non sovereign state, everyone is welcomed if they fit the criteria or needs of the non sovereign state. This is in a way a kind of no ownership of the state. It is for everyone to share and to take. Public or universal property? The state belongs to the talented regardless of race or nationality, not to the citizens. The citizens would have to compete with the talents from the rest of the world for jobs and everything, except doing NS.

If all states subscribe to this practice, then it is fair game in a way. But if most states do not subscribe to such a practice, how would the non sovereign states, some casually call them corporate states, end up eventually? Would they be looted or taken over by the foreigners now called citizens? It is easy for the innocent and unwary to lose their states to foreign talents with an agenda to take over such states for themselves or their former states. What would be the fate of their original citizens when foreigners became the majority and seized the state as theirs, like 'I found it' in the past and deliver the non state to their motherland, or bring in more of their kind to share the land and everything in it, including the national reserves?

PS. Why would the Ukrainians want to fight and die to protect their lands? Why not be non sovereign states or corporate states as long as the people can live well and the GDP is growing?