Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with you on some of your points. As a female who doesn't get into fights, I will assume that the most likely scenario for me fighting will involve a man attacking me with bad intent or potentially a drunk woman at a bar (neither of which has ever happened). I'm leaving out getting robbed b/c I'll just give up my wallet, and so there won't be a fight. The two situations I named are totally different and they warrant different levels of force. If a drunk woman attacks me, my intent would be to stop the fight as quickly as possible and leave before her friends jump in. If a man attacks me, my intent is similar, but the level of "stopping" power is going to escalate.
At this point in my Krav training, I don't feel like I can necessarily "beat" a man up b/c as I've said, I have never gotten into a fight. I think I'm more likely to get in a lucky shot. Despite that I will not give up, and if I get the opportunity for a hit that will keep him down for good, I'm going to take it. That is the value in knowning the more "military" manuevers, because the military versions assume that your attacker is trying to kill you, not that your attacker is some drunk lady who thinks you are looking at her funny.
I also don't assume that running away is as easy as people make it sound. I think that if I hit a guy, even in the groin, he could very well get right back up madder than ever. I am not a fast runner, nor am I particularly strong. Any hits I make have to count, and I value the training that will tell me which strikes will be the most effective.
From your statements, I assume that you are picturing us learning military manuevers by getting an opponent down (unable to get up) and then proceeding to do more lethal attacks. That is not the case at all. It more a question of what manuever to use directly after you are attacked and you have done your preliminary Krav defense. For instance (just making this up) you are being choked from the back. After you use the pluck to remove the attackers hands, you have a number of available responses. One response may be a submission, and another may be a groin kick, while another could be to break their elbow by pulling it down over your shoulder. Breaking their elbow might be the "military" version of the defense, and some men may contend that they'd rather get that than a groin kick
. The military things we've learned aren't necessarily deadly(some are, some aren't), they are just more assertive. Some such as throat strikes are potentially deadly. If a man attacks me in a parking lot, I'm going to use every weapon available, and if I have the choice between punching him in the nose or the throat, I'm going to pick the throat.
As for learning the military things like terrorist take downs, those really are just things are thrown in on rare occassions just because they are interesting. And while the average American doesn't need them, let's instead look at ways they can be useful. Disarming someone with a grenade can be very similar to disarming a someone who is throwing rocks or bottles. Taking down a terrorist with a bomb would probably be the same manuever used to take down a drunk friend who is insisting on starting a fight.
I haven't heard of any Krav instructors offering "real military training", I didn't realize that was going on. My school certainly doesn't offer that. My school does have "real Krav training by someone who happened to learn and use the skills in the military". I think that any 1 hour class for civilians is going to be pretty sissy compared to military training, regardless of how hard people think their Krav classes are. That is just my view. I also don't know of anyone who brags about how many people they have taken down. But I'm sure that if your teacher was showing you how they are trained to take down a terrorist wearing a bomb, you'd ask "have you ever had to do this for real"? And believe it or not, the manuever that we learned wasn't deadly at all. The whole point of the take-down is to get the person on their back and keep their hands controlled so that they can't set off a bomb whose trigger is near their stomach.
Everyone who I train with is in it for the self defense aspect, and that is the point that is pressed by our instructors.
Not every person who was in the military walks around in camouflage reliving their glory days. My opinion on the original thread was that I find value in learning a skill from someone who has actually had to *use* it. I'm sure that many of the people who were formally in the military only saw "action" against unarmed protesters, but please don't disrespect someone's military experience if you don't know anything about it.
I've looked at these boards for a while and never posted because I felt that posts can be easily misunderstood, and I think that has happened with my post here.