The dilemma lies herein: neither of the two approaches is entirely wrong.

The former, seemingly more humane, also seems impractical considering the fact that the overall dangers that hover the world today in the form of weaponry available and tactics designed are far advanced and devastating than anything else that has been witnessed in history. Its impracticality lies in its overlooking the gravity of an attack and in how torture at the right time and towards the right link could prove to be the difference between mass destruction and liberty. The fact is that this idea cannot stand firm for long in the face of the dangers and perils that can be caused today.

The latter approach, seemingly harsh, also seems ignorant of the fact that terrorism or war is not restricted to any race, religion or nation. Since the beginning of time, every nation has looked for supremacy in the world and planned for it accordingly. Yes, the current methodologies are more disaster-prone but that only confirms that there isn't one single nation that cannot have its intelligence designers, or soldiers, captured and tortured for information that could "potentially save millions" including American intelligence designers and soldiers. The latter belief seems to project that the American intelligence only has reactionary plans while that is not only naive to believe and hypocritical to project.

The facts, in the 21st century, are these: the economic state of a nation (agricultural, industrialized, capitalized, urbanized, etc.) is one of the main factors that determine their approach towards their overall policies on torture. History has shown that it is usually authoritarian governments who have been recorded to have the most extensive...

Comparatively, the governments that promote democracy that initiate and apply the extreme conditions of torture on not only their enemies but also their own citizens in circumstances of civil wars or internal clashes. One of the main indicators of the torture laws or policies that a government makes is dependent upon the balance between the economic state of the country and the nature of its government.
Conclusion:

Throughout the thesis above, the two ideologies towards the use of torture as a tool of war or strategy have been discussed under logical lights. One ideology condemns the use of torture under any circumstances by arguing that torture is an inhumane practice and is against the basic human rights that every person has. Furthermore, this ideology also points out that using torture as a strategy against one's enemies is an automatic permit for the enemies to use torture as a strategy as well. The other ideology is far harsher but more practical as it condones and even promotes torture in extreme and do-or-die circumstances where the action is clearly to save innocent lives by torturing a criminal mastermind or puppet.

The key, when it comes to torture in the modern world, lies in the balance of the two strategies. Since the War on Terror, there has been a deficiency in any form of balance. Initially there was an extensive use of torture tactics by the Bush administration to punish the terrorists and extract information from them which has been a direct circumstance of the approach of the two current presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, to have a no-torture policy. Neither is wrong and neither is right. Torture, even though, is a devastating tool but it is perhaps the most effective tool available to fight off mass killings and persecutions of innocents if used intelligently and circumstantially.