when it seems like a mean-spirited jab, just for the sake of seeing how the masses will writhe, it makes me sad

RTD definitely comes off as smug and superior during his interviews, but I haven't read anything that made it seem like he did this to be cruel to anyone but Jack and Ianto.

It seems the writers really did set up a situation where it was Jack's grandson or a millions of other kids. Get somebody down the road? No time. Even a few minutes delay could have let the junkies pick up their fix. Clever idea so it would not kill the kid to send the signal? Probably could have been done if they had the time. That review linked a while back was right. If the government had let in Torchwood from the beginning, and Torchwood and the specialist team had pooled their resources, there is a good chance this could have been solved without losing Ianto or the people in Thames house, or even one kid. But Torchwood was kept on the run, no time to plan, cut off from access to information. I will note by the way that in spite of my previous criticism, they seem to be a really functioning team now. Working together much better than in season one.

Yes, the writers did set up a no win. I understand why Martha had to be written out, and what the excuse was for Jack to kill his grandchild, Ianto to die all so Jack could split and be morose. Fine. But were these the only ways to make the larger points?

It's a lot of crazy plotting to put Jack through agony. As one viewer, I’m not sure all the coincidences and assumptions about politicians being lemmings were all worth it.

You likely could have achieved a good bit of what the writers were intending (personal sacrifice, not sacrificing others' children) by having Clem make this statement and then agree to be used as the vessel.

But this wouldn't have achieved the aim of having Jack seem like a complete bastard.

I don't know if it does make Jack seem like a complete bastard. That is why I emphasized that the writers set up a convincing no win scenario. Of course the science is probably inferior to Eureka's (and that is a tough standard to meet) but it is emotionally convincing which is what counts in this sort of writing. I 100% believed that Jack's choice was that stark: millions or his grandson. No third option. Now that does not make it right. But it does not make choosing the other way right either. He had no good choices, and it is not self-evident that this was not the lesser evil. It is hard to say that he was automatically a complete bastard. And maybe in a real world ethical situation, you could arguing that sacrificing an innocent is never the lesser evil. (See Le Guin's short story "Those who walk away from Omelas". ) But emotionally, within the context of the story I don't think we are supposed to see Jack as a complete bastard for doing this.

Typo,

I think Jack taking 12 children to the aliens in 1965, coupled with his sacrifice of his grandson (without having a sit down with his daughter first) makes him a complete bastard. I did not find Jack sympathetic in the least concerning his actions (on the other hand, I really had a problem with his constant torment).

without having a sit down with his daughter first

That wasn't an option given their timeframe. It was either take him now or not take him at all.

My previous comment stands:

Yes, the writers did set up a no win.

One that I didn't think they needed to do.

I think it boils down to how naked did you want to strip Jack emotionally. Their answer was entirely, and yours is not.

I'm not sure about that. I feel like I saw a lot of Jack and his darkest days prior to CoE. I'm not sure I felt I saw him stripped naked - more than the loss of Tosh & Owen and the betrayal of his brother. That was some really dark stuff. How much more did we need to see? Will RTD and friends try to top CoE next? I mean damn.

My central question: Did we need RTD to try to attempt to go darker after "Exit Wounds?"

What's next? Watching Jack choke all of his living kids and grandkids by hand and then seeing him get pulled limb from limb. When he reassembles, can we then see him drawn and quartered? Then can we see a flashback that he was involved in some genocidal act?

My central question: Did we need RTD to try to attempt to go darker after "Exit Wounds?"

I think so, because in this case, it was showing the ordinariness of evil. The fact that the 456 were using the children as drugs. That the real villain of the piece was an ordinary man, the Prime Minister.

And that in showing us that kind of evil, how it's the good people, the ones with conscience, who ultimately pay the most.