Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War?

 

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime—Ernest Hemingway 

In this issue: 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War?

Part 1. Thesis: Nature: The Big One

1A. The Wittgenstein Trap

1B. Between Tectonics and Politics

Part 2. Anti-Thesis: Human Action: Man-Made Disasters

2A. Brewing Crisis: Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal Incident

2B. Chinese 36 Stratagems in Action

2C. Escalation Beyond the Shoals

2D. The Root of War: Human Action

2E. Thai-Cambodia Border Clash and Thai’s Domestic Policy Fissure

2F. Fatalities: Wars Eclipse Earthquakes

2G. Unknown Unknowns-Black Swan Event: The Final Trigger

Part 3. Synthesis: Nature’s Convulsions vs. Man-Made Catastrophes

3A. The Human Trigger

3B. The Shape of Future Wars and the Grey Swan

3C. War Economies and Systemic Fragility

3D. Conclusion: The Shape of the Next Black Swan

 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War? 

Nature versus human action—which would happen first, and which would be deadlier?

Part 1. Thesis: Nature: The Big One 

A string of significant earthquakes—magnitude 5 and above—has recently shaken the Philippines.

Figure 1 

From Cebu’s 6.9 (September 30) to Davao Oriental’s 7.4 (October 10), to Negros Occidental and Zambales’s 5.1 (October 11), to Surigao del Sur’s 6.0 (October 11), to Surigao del Norte’s 6.2 (October 17) and to Ilocos Norte’s 5.2 (October 17), the tremors have been relentless and have drawn public anxiety. Both Cebu and Davao Oriental continue to record over a thousand aftershocks. (Figure 1) 

Despite denying possible interconnections among these tremors, officials and media have begun to promote the likelihood of "The Big One" in the National Capital Region—a 7.2-magnitude quake expected to “bring catastrophic destruction” to Metro Manila. 

The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) bases its forecast or hazard assessments on the West Valley Fault’s recurrence interval of 400–600 years, suggesting that “its next movement may possibly happen earlier or later than 2058.”

A Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) study further estimates that The Big One could result in 33,500 fatalities and 113,600 injuries.

Adding to the anxiety is talk of a “Culebra Event,” coined by independent researcher Brent Dmitruk, describing a potential chain reaction of earthquakes triggered by tectonic stress transfer across fault systems—like a slithering snake (culebra in Spanish). Though unsupported by mainstream seismology, the idea captures public fear that defies conventional models and timelines.

The Philippines, of course, is no stranger to major quakes and has endured two major quakes in modern history:

The Moro Gulf Earthquake (August 17, 1976, magnitude 8.1) near Mindanao and Sulu caused 5,000–8,000 deaths, from both quake and tsunami.

The 1990 Luzon Earthquake (July 16,1990. magnitude 7.8) centered in Rizal, Nueva Ecija, killed 1,621 and injured 3,500, destroying buildings even in Metro Manila—though fatalities in the NCR were limited to three.

First, these events show that even the strongest recorded quakes—occurring decades ago and in poorer eras—produced casualties below 10,000.

Second, with today’s supposed technological advances, stricter building codes, and a “wealthier” economy, it is doubtful that "The Big One" would match JICA’s apocalyptic estimates—unless the quake’s magnitude or duration exceeds historical precedents.

Third, when PHIVOLCS says it may occur "earlier or later than 2058," it essentially admits ignorance or uncertainty, dressed up as science. The 400–600-year interval is a broad statistical range—based on paleoseismic trenching data—not a clock.  

If the Big One hits in 2058 or later, many of us won’t be around to validate the prophecy—unless futurist Ray Kurzweil’s “Singularity” delivers on its promise to merge machine intelligence and humanity in the quest for immortality.

Fourth, earthquake prediction remains closer to numerical choreography than precise science.

As Wikipedia notes: “After a critical review of the scientific literature, the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) concluded in 2011 that there was considerable room for methodological improvements. Many reported precursors are contradictory, lack measurable amplitude, or are unsuitable for rigorous statistical evaluation." 

Even behavioral studies of animals as predictors have failed to establish reliability—no constants, no reproducibility. 

As Wikipedia notes, many earthquake ‘predictions’ are remembered only when they appear to hit — a textbook case of selection bias. In reality, misses vanish quietly into obscurity, while lucky coincidences are framed as scientific foresight. 

To date, no model has achieved reproducible accuracy in predicting the exact timing, magnitude, or location of a major quake—anywhere in the world. 

1A. The Wittgenstein Trap 

Seen through Wittgenstein’s Ruler (as applied by Nassim Taleb): 

Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table, you may also be using the table to measure the ruler. 

Applied here, government agencies present statistical intervals as confidence. If a quake happens within the range, it validates neither the model nor the state—it only confirms that earthquakes happen eventually.

If it doesn’t, the model isn’t falsified—it’s simply "extended." 

Duh! 

That’s the Wittgenstein trap: the model (the ruler) is never truly tested by reality (the table). Every outcome is reinterpreted to preserve authority. 

The likelihood that earthquake models hit their prediction—timing, location, and magnitude—is effectively near zero. 

Their utility lies not in prophecy but in policy: infrastructure codes, disaster preparedness, funding and others. More importantly, the political need to manage fear. 

Keep this in mind, the "Big One" may eventually occur—but whether it happens as predicted is almost entirely coincidental. 

And when it does, its qualitative effects are likely to depart significantly from the scenarios sold to the public by official experts. 

1B. Between Tectonics and Politics

Figure 2

Earlier, we proposed in our October 10 post on X.com that these seismic episodes may be “coincidental geologically, yet symbolically it feels as though the ground beneath us—literally, institutionally, and metaphorically—is shifting.”  (Figure 2) 

That remark, written amid an unfolding corruption probe, captured a deeper truth: instability in governance mirrors instability in nature. Both release pressures accumulated over time—one through tectonic strain, the other through moral decay—manifesting as eroding trust, public fatigue, and cynicism toward those meant to uphold order. 

Thus, the “Big One” is not merely a geological prophecy but an allegory for a state under pressure, its faults widening both underground and within. Economic tectonics—liquidity cycles, capital migrations, and policy misalignments—converge with political fault lines, creating a landscape where what is called “resilience” may simply be the calm before the rupture. 

For while nature’s tremors follow blind physics, the greater danger lies in human volition—where pride, fear, and miscalculation can unleash catastrophes far deadlier than any fault line. 

The next rupture may not come from the earth, but from the choices of men. 

Part 2. Anti-Thesis: Human Action: Man-Made Disasters

Figure 3

2A. Brewing Crisis: Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal Incident

While the heebie-jeebies over “The Big One” and other earthquakes often grip the public, a more insidious tremor unfolds daily in the South China Sea. Media reports chronicle near-constant confrontations between China’s military and Philippine forces: Chinese jets tailing Philippine Coast Guard aircraft over Bajo de Masinloc, warships aiming lasers at Filipino fishermen, and water cannons battering resupply missions to contested shoals. (Figure3) 

The Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal incident on June 17, 2024 marked one of the most volatile flashpoints in recent years. 

During a resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre—a grounded WWII-era vessel serving as a Philippine outpost—China Coast Guard (CCG) personnel rammed, boarded, and wielded machetes and axes against Philippine Navy boats. The skirmish left several Filipino personnel injured, one severely. Some officials described it as a “near act of war.” 

Even prior to this, China’s repeated use of water cannons had already prompted warnings that a Filipino fatality could trigger the 1951 U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). 

Still, officials refrained from escalating the matter, citing the absence of firearms—an example of legal technicalities serving as political veneer. 

But let’s be candid: this "restraint" was not a purely local decision. 

The United States, already deeply entangled in the Russia–Ukraine war and the Israel–Palestine–Hezbollah–Iran conflict, has been supplying arms, intelligence, logistics, funding and etc., across multiple theaters, likely sought to avoid opening another front with China. With its strategic bandwidth stretched thin, Washington may have quietly signaled Manila to stand down, avoiding direct escalation with Beijing. 

2B. Chinese 36 Stratagems in Action 

China’s tactical behavior in the South China Sea mirrors or aligns with several of the Thirty Six Stratagems, a classical Chinese playbook for deception and maneuver: 

1. Beat the grass to startle the snake – China’s repeated use of water cannons, laser targeting, and close flybys—especially when Philippine vessels are accompanied by media or U.S. observers—serves as deliberate provocation to test: 

A) Philippine resolve and limits under Marcos Jr.’s more assertive maritime stance; 

B) U.S. response thresholds under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty—will Washington truly go to war for Manila or is this just posturing? 

C) Sphere of Influence: Test ASEAN’s cohesion, identifying weak links, wavering partners, and potential recruits for Chinese influence 

2. Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree – Accept small losses to secure larger strategic interests. China may tolerate reputational costs (international condemnation, legal rebukes) to maintain de facto control of contested waters and normalize its presence. 

3 Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west – Create diversions to mask true objectives. While public attention centers on high-profile flashpoints like Second Thomas Shoal, China quietly fortifies other positions such as the Paracel, (Subi Reef) Spratly Islands and Luconia Shoals, expanding influence with minimal resistance U.S. Army Pacific. 

There are more, but we opted to limit it to these. 

2C. Escalation Beyond the Shoals 

Philippine leadership has also amplified its rhetoric on Taiwan, signaling a shift from territorial defense to strategic alignment with U.S. interests. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro’s visit to Mavulis Island, the northernmost Philippine outpost near Taiwan, was interpreted by Beijing as a provocative move. 

The United States, for its part, has accelerated its military buildup in the Philippines—provoking sharp responses from Beijing. 

• MRC Typhon: Mid-Range missile platform capable of launching SM-6 and nuclear capable Tomahawk missiles 
• NMESIS: Anti-ship missile system
• MADIS: Air defense system designed to counter drones and aerial threats 

These deployments have drawn sharp rebukes from China, which views them as encirclement. 

2D. The Root of War: Human Action 

While wars may have complex causation, their ignition essentially boils down to human action—impulse, emotion, pride, ambition, ideology, faith, fear or the pursuit of power. 

Figure 4 

Whether it’s:

• Mythic provocation (Helen of Troy)
• Territorial hunger (Lebensraum)
• Political culture (Bushido, Spartan honor)
• Ideological clash (nationalism, communism, democracy)
• Faith and doctrine (religious wars)
• Oppression and independence (colonial revolts) 

…each war is a man-made disaster, often more devastating than nature’s fiercest convulsions. (Figure 4) 

Again, history’s wars are rarely accidents of circumstance; they are the culmination of deliberate human choices, ambitions, and fears. Each cause—territorial, ideological, or psychological—reflects a particular configuration of human action under pressure 

2E. Thai-Cambodia Border Clash and Thai’s Domestic Policy Fissure 

Take the recent case of the Thai–Cambodia border clashes, which erupted on July 24, 2025, and lasted five days. The conflict resulted in 38 confirmed deaths, over 300,000 civilians displaced, and dozens injured. A U.S.–China–ASEAN-brokered ceasefire was reached on July 28 in Putrajaya, Malaysia, though violations were reported within days.

While tensions trace back to colonial-era boundary ambiguities—notably the Franco-Siamese Treaties of 1904 and 1907—the immediate trigger was political destabilization in Thailand. A leaked phone call between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Khleang Huot, Deputy Governor of Phnom Penh, exposed internal rifts between Thailand’s civilian leadership and its military establishment. The fallout led to Paetongtarn’s ouster, which reportedly emboldened the Thai military, escalating border hostilities and complicating diplomatic restraint. 

This episode exemplifies how domestic political fractures—especially civil-military dissonance—can act as a proximate cause of war, even when historical grievances simmer in the background. 

Although the engagement occurred without the direct involvement of superpowers, the casualties, displacement, and property damage were almost comparable to those from a major earthquake. 

2F. Fatalities: Wars Eclipse Earthquakes 

But this is a mere tremor compared to the tectonic toll of modern wars. In the Russia–Ukraine conflict and the Israel–Palestine–Hezbollah–Iran escalation, aggregate casualties have surged into the tens of thousands, with entire cities reduced to rubble and economies hollowed out. 

Zooming out, the 20th century offers even starker metrics:

• World War I: ~20 million deaths
• World War II: ~60–85 million deaths (approximately 500,000 to 1 million Filipinos perished)
• Korean War: ~3 million deaths
• Vietnam War: ~2–3 million deaths

 These are not just numbers.  Wars inflict far greater devastation on society—its people, its social fabric, capital, financial and economic wellbeing—than most natural disasters. 

2G. Unknown Unknowns-Black Swan Event: The Final Trigger 

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defending the absence of evidence linking Iraq to weapons of mass destruction, famously invoked the concept of “unknown unknowns”—the things we don’t know we don’t know. 

In many ways, Black Swan events fall under this same category. They share three defining traits: they are unpredictable, highly improbable, and extremely consequential—whether catastrophic or transformative. 

Part 3. Synthesis: Nature’s Convulsions vs. Man-Made Catastrophes 

The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves—Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) 

Geological cycles and seismic displacements will inevitably occur—whether tomorrow, next year, or within our lifetime. But despite their scientific veneer, no current technology can predict their timing or magnitude with precision. And when framed within historical context, their feared impact may be less apocalyptic than media portrayals suggest. 

Still, situational awareness and preparedness should remain a universal goal—to prevent one from becoming a collateral of what Nature or Providence may unleash. 

3A. The Human Trigger 

By contrast, wars are man-made disasters—often triggered not by grand strategy, but by accidents, miscalculations, and misinterpretations, all fueled by human frailties. The daily confrontations in the South China Sea could easily escalate into a bilateral kinetic engagement, like the Thai–Cambodia or India–Pakistan border clashes.

Should escalation occur—and if the Philippines invokes the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States—the world could awaken to the unthinkable: a third world war. This is not hyperbole—it’s a structurally plausible outcome.

And this could happen anytime. As long as belligerence dominates bilateral policy, the spark could ignite today, tomorrow, next week, or a year from now. The extent of destruction remains deeply unknown—dependent on the nature and scale of warfare employed.

3B. The Shape of Future Wars and the Grey Swan

Unlike World War II, which pursued territorial conquest, modern warfare is more strategic than expansive. In the Russia–Ukraine war, occupation has largely focused on Donetsk and Luhansk —ethnically Russian regions—with limited push toward Kyiv. In contrast, the Israel–Middle East conflict may reflect ambitions for a Greater Israel, with broader territorial implications.

Yet the Philippine public remains benumbed—desensitized by repetition and diversion, dulled by inertia. This jaded reaction blinds us to escalation, even when its architecture is already in place.

It’s not a Black Swan—it’s a Grey Swan: known, possible, but broadly discounted. 

3C. War Economies and Systemic Fragility 

Meanwhile, internal economic fragilities mirror these geopolitical tensions.

Figure 5 

The war economies of Thailand and the Philippines have been among the worst-performing Asian stock markets in 2025, down -8.97% and -6.73% year-to-date, respectively (as of October 17). Though internal fragility remains the primary concern, this also suggests that geopolitical tensions have contributed to the erosion of investor confidence. 

Despite global equities reaching record highs amid easy-money policies and the weak dollar, these two “war economies” remain laggards. 

If liquidity tightens globally, could leaders resort to military conflict—a survival mechanism cloaked in patriotism— as a means to divert public attention from political economic entropy? 

That’s our Black Swan. 

War is conscious cruelty compounded over time—the most preventable catastrophe, yet the one that most often eclipses nature’s fiercest convulsions.

3D. Conclusion: The Shape of the Next Black Swan 

In the end, both earthquakes and wars spring from ruptures—one from the shifting of tectonic plates, the other from the collision of human wills. The former is inevitable, a law of Nature; the latter is avoidable, yet repeatedly chosen. 

One humbles man before forces beyond comprehension; the other exposes the peril of his own hubris. Between Providence and pride lies the fragile equilibrium of civilization. Whether the next Black Swan rises from the earth’s crust or from the depths of human ambition, its impact will test not our technology, but our wisdom—our ability to foresee, restrain, and prepare before the unthinkable unfolds.