THE illegality of the use of chemical weapons is well established in international law: the purported legitimacy of an attack on a sovereign nation on the humanitarian grounds is not. When asked by Joanna Cherry QC, MP to cite legal authority in international law for the proposition that the attacks on Syria were legitimate, the Prime Minister was unable to present any case beyond the vague and questionable argument that there was precedent for such attack ("May: We did not bomb Syria because Trump asked us to", The Herald, April 17). The humanitarian argument hinges on prevention of the future use of such abominable weapons.

The illegality of the possession, let alone use, of nuclear weapons is well established in international law. According to the logic of the UK Government's legal case any nation or group of nations would, on humanitarian grounds, have international warrant to eradicate the UK's capacity for future use of its nuclear weapons of mass destruction. While common sense indicates that such a conclusion is preposterous it is the rational conclusion to be drawn from the legal argument presented for the Prime Minister's position.

If, on the other hand, the reasons for the attacks were punitive or demonstrative of intent to intervene in a civil war, the legal position is quite clear. Such an infringement of sovereignty is contrary to the Law of Nations. If, by some happenstance, humanity and world peace have been well served by these attacks I will rejoice and grant credit. I fear the contrary, and despite the laudation from western allies, I suspect that another deficit has accrued to the credibility of the United Kingdom.

KM Campbell,

Bank House, Doune.

THE Ministry of Defence claims that President Assad's regime had been stockpiling materials used to make chemical weapons in the buildings which were bombed by the US, UK and France. If that is indeed the case, it seems a very risky strategy to drop bombs on potentially lethal substances. Gerry Seenan (Letters, April 17) makes the point that the UK was "not under imminent threat of direct attack", which begs the questions, why did Theresa May rush to bomb? And why did she not let the democratically elected MPs have their say in Parliament before taking such drastic action?

There is also a question Jeremy Corbyn needs to answer: why, after all his declared outrage about the attack on Syria and the lack of parliamentary input to the decision, did he not back the vote on Monday, instigated by the SNP, on whether there had been sufficient debate in the House of Commons on Syria? Mr Corbyn and his Labour colleagues sat on their hands and abstained.

I have always considered President Putin to be a devious, cruel, KGB thug, but in this mad, bad, dangerous world Britain also needs to examine its own behaviour and conscience. With all the many horrors which can fairly be laid at the door of President Putin, he can't be blamed for the British weapons which the Saudis are using against civilians in Yemen, and he can't be blamed for the illegal war on Iraq.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

SO how will history judge last Saturday's 100-missile strike on Syria by US, British and French forces? As a precursor to a wider conflict, a salutary warning to President Assad or as a pointless military exercise?

President Trump's subsequent "mission accomplished" tweet betrays a complete lack of understanding of the military and political morass that constitutes the seven-year Syrian civil war as well as his narcissistic and parochial rationale of what can be deemed successful.

Military strikes on Syria have provided President Trump with the opportunity to feed his ego and delight his core support whilst swaggering on the international stage as the biggest bully in the global playground. His acolytes, France and Britain, are as culpable as their acknowledged Godfather and may even have welcomed this action as a distraction from arduous domestic issues. Yet the civil war and all the inhumanity and suffering of innocent populations that this involves will continue with no foreseeable conclusion in sight. There is no interest or political gain in pursuing a long-term political panacea to the Syrian tragedy from the Western powers, who have been ignoring Chinese pleas to get round the table and examine a number of possible diplomatic solutions.

The military action was described accurately by Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard as dubious both legally and morally, as the UN Security Council and the British Parliament were both sidelined as an inconvenience or even obstacle to the bombing of Syrian sites and bases by the US, France and the UK.

The use of chemical weapons is undeniably abhorrent but does the humanitarian and moral outrage of the aforesaid governments extend to condemnatory action against the recent Israeli government's disproportionate aggression and contravention of human rights in Gaza? Or to the current humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen where UK-supplied Saudi forces continue to murder innocent civilians on an industrial scale?

Military action in Syria reeks of hypocrisy, breaches international law and conventional diplomatic wisdom and its blatant short-termism signally fails to bring a peaceful solution one iota closer.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.

I NOTE the views of various of your correspondents in the Letters Pages today (April 17).

While I am no fan of a bombing campaign I do not believe that a United Nations resolution is achievable given the strong Russian backing for the Assad regime. It appears likely that Russia will continue to use its veto at the UN come what may.

In those circumstances is it right to stand back and simply observe people being killed at the whim of President Assad?

It appears to me that if we do so it brings to mind the Edmund Burke quote, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

I hope that the bombing will have rendered the chemical gas factories inoperable and I truly wish that the Syrians will come to their senses with the aid of pressure from all the UN members including Russia, which has the power to influence President Assad, so that all citizens of Syria are safe.

D Neal Stewart,

16 Glendoune Road, Clarkston.