I’m sure it’s no coincidence this(warning, pdf) was the first thing that popped in my mind. 
A bit about that awful reality:
http://ww2today.com/15th-october-1942-the-unrelenting-battle-for-stalingrad-continues
Me, too. 
Personally, I have always thought of strategy and tactics as a variant of Aristotle’s categories (*genus *and species, used generically).
Basically, just as Linnaeus categorized living creatures into Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species, all things in the world (including the world of the mind) can be placed in categories.
In living things, just as a Species is a subset of a Genus, an Order is a subset of a Class (or an Order is a *species *of a Class, and a Class is a *genus *to an Order).
Rightly or wrongly, I view Strategy and Tactics the same way.
Basically, as BucketBuck said …
But, I think like that on all levels.
Tactic- sneak up up to machine gun nest and throw a grenade
Strategy- we gotta take out that machine gun before we can advance
Tactic- advance to the bridge and hold it
Strategy- deny the enemy reinforcements and supply
Tactic- blockade the enemy
Strategy- starve the enemy out
…and so on…
Yes but it changes in relation to the scope of your overall mission. If you overall goal is to occupy a single city, blockading the roads and other supply lines leading into that city might be your strategy while choosing specific choke points would be your tactic.
However, if your overall goal is to occupy an entire country, the scope changes so that occupying key cities is your strategy and choosing which ones to occupy becomes your tactic.
The definition of strategy versus tactic also changes with the scope of authority. It is much broader for a General or Admiral than it is for a Colonel. It is broader still for the President and the Secretary of Defense. A very high ranking General could be in charge of an an entire theater of war like during WWII but specific theaters aren’t the entire war so you need leaders that can command at an even higher level.
The cliched phrase, “Win wars, not battles” is apt here. The problem is that that there is no fixed definition of either one and either can change in scope vastly depending on how closely you zoom in. The Generals in charge of winning the Pacific or Europeans theaters during WWII probably saw those as their personal war but it really wasn’t. Each was just a giant series of battles as part of a much larger context. The war was all of WWII itself and other members of government had to keep the entire picture in mind because we had to win both to be successful at all.
However, there is another old saying that says “Amateurs talk Strategy; Hobbyists talk tactics; Professionals talk logistics” and there is an element of truth to that as well. It means that strategy and tactics don’t mean much if you can’t back it up with a line of dependable resources. That applies to everything from the military to corporations to political movements.
Good answers upthread, but in a nutshell:
Tactical: How do we win this fight?
Strategic: How do we get them to stop fighting?
Strategy depends on the scope of command… at the field level, a commander’s strategy involves targeting logistics, intelligence, and command structures… ways to ensure that your troops always have the advantage in the fight. On the opposite end, at the political level, you might target industrial or population centers. If your enemy suddenly has no petroleum, that hampers their ability to project military force. If they lose half their population, that also tends to undermine the war effort.
This might help:
Don’t forget the word “political”.
Both sides (USA and USSR) did not want a nuclear war. Castro was in the middle.
I would say strategic, not in the battle-sense, because I believe “tactical” would be used once the fighting started.
Which didn’t happen.