Would a Nuclear attack on the Homeland be more likely under Trump or Hillary

Those in the Hillary Clinton campaign along with their allies in the media would have you believe that nuclear war would be more likely under a Trump administration than a Hillary one.  Not true.  History has shown us that strong countries are less likely to be attacked by their enemies than weak ones or ones just perceived to be weak.  Trump has said, he would strengthen our armed forces while the Obama administration along with former Secretary of State Clinton have shown they would continue to reduce it's size.  They have shown to be weak in the face of threats coming from the Middle East---just look at the phony red line in Syria and of course the Russian reset.  The blame for WWII, the most destructive war of the last century could be placed at the feet of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for the weakness he showed to Germany at Munich.  There he signed an agreement that basically caved in to Hitler's demands, thus leading the German leader to believe that Britain would do little to stop any future German aggression in Europe.  Sometime, well thought out agreements can lead to continued peace while at other times they will be followed by war and destruction.  I suspect, the recent nuclear deal with Iran by both Obama and Hillary will in the end lead to a great conflict in the Middle East.  A conflict that will eventually bring in other world powers.  I feel that of the two, Hillary and Trump, that Donald is not near as dangerous on the world stage as a weak compromising Hillary Clinton would be.  Vote Trump in 2016!!!!!