Always?  No.  Sometimes?  You betcha!

Nuke, it would seem you're engaging in a bit of... ahem... absolutism here .  Hey, you started the inconsistency game .  I will say, I do not know if the old or new testaments or Joseph Smith for that matter would fall favorably or negatively on this.  It is a very extreme and perhaps unlikely scenario but it allows you to work backwards to figure out where you stand.  I suppose the most extreme example would be some doomsday device which would destroy all life on the planet.  Where would you stand then? 

If we define everything short of totally kind, gentle, reciprocal, cooperative, and indeed as you've described it altruistic(!) interaction with a source as "torture," we have shut a door on our toolkit for dealing with these new global nuclear age issues. I am arguing that that is a mistake. We should not define ourselves as "good guys" into a highly obstructed and unpragmatic corner in which we will be less able to deal with whatever it is they have to hit us with. Neither should we define ourselves as "any means is justified by the ends of us winning." But there is a wide, and important space betweent those two extremes which need not be marked off as no-man's land by using absolutist, and polarizing rhetoric.

This is exactly the debate going on in U.S. jurisprudential contexts today, so while it is on the surface silly for us to be doing it too, it is not trivial.