Mr Fixit: I previously asked, "But how else do you propose that we get information that might save our lives?"

You replied, as anyone else might, "I don't know".

So let's suppose that now YOU (you meaning whomever might be reading this thread) are ultimately responsible for making such decisions, and you are now responsible for the outcome of thousands of innocent individuals, the fate of families, the fate of nations and the fate of a few fuckers that publicly proclaim to hate us and publicly proclaim their intent to kill us. What would you do?

Would you, strategically and politely, ask them to pretty please tell us all about the details of their devious intentions? I don't think so.
First of all, I object to your use of the word "fuckers" in this context. It's perjorative and does you no credit.

So let us now suppose I am in the situation you describe. Would I order someone to be tortured? Well, I would start in the knowledge that torture is illegal and immoral. Am I prepared to break the law and betray my moral standards. I am certain that I would not, unless I was compelled to. What would compel me?

I would have to know (I would accept "high probability" - at least 51% probability, but I would still be hesitant at that level) that there was vital information to be had. By vital I mean significant life or death information. "Significant" is intended to imply (very) many lives at risk.

Now, how many individuals do you suppose are in possession of information about a forthcoming atrocity that would take away so very many lives? Supposing there was such an atrocity pending, how do I tell if the man I am considering putting to the torture actually knows about it? (The key to terrorism is to operate in small cells so that each individual knows only one or two other members, and is aware only of his role in whatever plans are laid at the last possible moment.)

I would have to be virtually certain - say 97%+ that the individual being considered for torture possessed that information.

I would then have to assess what forms of torture would be effective against the intended victim and how much resistance I could expect: would the amount of pain necessary to be inflicted exceed my ability to inflict it? Or would the victim accept painful death rather than part with the information? (Because, if so, waterboarding would be a waste of everyone's time.)

Next, I would have to assess whether the information to be extracted from the "subject" would be reliable. Was I wrong? Does he know nothing, but will give me the information he thinks I want anyway, just to escape the torture? Or does he know everything I want to know, but gives me false information to misdirect me?

And as in all probability, my answers to those questions would be against proceeding with the torture, I am sure I would not give the order in the end.

You ask for a reasonable alternative. There is none. Only ones that are unreasonable and inhuman.

That is, after all, why torture was outlawed.