If your understanding of strict typing is statically typed, i.e. that types are checked at compile time then C still has some flaws as you could write a whole slew of C that is "typeless" using void * although that would be terribly misguided.
I understand your intent, but I dislike the ambiguity of the phrasing.
Java's casts are dynamically checked, memory-safe and only work through the inheritance hierarchy, if you try to cast to an invalid type you'll get an error. Putting it in the same class as a C-style cast makes your usage of "weakly typed" as meaningless as it ever is.
For C++ — ignoring C-style casts — it depends which cast you use, dynamic_cast requires RTTI but IIRC it offers the same guarantees as Java's cast; static_cast should check that the types are related and the conversion is valid at compile-time, reinterpret_cast is the "weakly typed" one (essentially a simpler version of a C-style cast).
> I understand your intent, but I dislike the ambiguity of the phrasing.
Yet you use the expressions "strongly typed" and "weakly typed"?