Final answer:
Controls in a military context are meant to reduce or eliminate risk, maintaining safety and discipline while achieving mission goals. Command-and-control regulations establish specific limits and requirements for operations, such as environmental controls, but have their own limitations.
Step-by-step explanation:
Controls in a military context are designed primarily to reduce or eliminate risk. These measures ensure that the soldiers operate within a framework that maintains safety, discipline, and the readiness of the unit. The intent is not to limit commanders' authority, prevent soldiers from having fun, or unnecessarily increase their workloads, but to provide a structure that facilitates mission accomplishment and maintains order.
In a broader context, such as in command-and-control regulation, controls are set to establish specific limitations and requirements, such as those for pollution emissions, in efforts to protect the environment. However, these can have limitations such as providing no incentive for exceeding limits, limited flexibility, and potential loopholes.
Discipline within the armed forces, as suggested by military writings, relies on the enforcement of controls and commands. A well-disciplined army arises from consistently applied training and command, leading to reliability and efficiency in operations. On the other hand, if training and commands are not enforced, discipline will falter. This reflects the dual nature of control as both a means of maintaining authority and ensuring the well-being and success of its soldiers.