M: A lot of comics and anime and all that end up having a situation where there's a shot of the Earth and a visible amount of light, if not an explosion, often something that takes up, like, I don't know, maybe 12 degrees, maybe even 20 degrees of the arc of the circumference of the Earth at that point. What I'm wondering, and I'd like you to try and figure out if it's not already something you know, is what is the minimum amount of, like, light energy that would be necessary to cause that effect? And what would that result in if you were near ground zero for whatever circumstance allowed that? Like, assuming that it came from a single source, what is the bare minimum just for the light? Like, in the comics and other animations, the implication is that it comes from some form of explosion, but I have a feeling that is just ultra-ridiculous, so I'm just wondering how much, I think the term is candlepower or whatever, would be necessary and what that would do to someone who was hanging around at the area nearby.

G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: [Non-text content: reasoning_recap; content_type=reasoning_recap]

G:

TLDR

To make a 12–20°-wide “glow on Earth” (roughly 1,300–2,200 km along the rim) from a single source, the bare-minimum light levels that read “obvious” in a typical anime/comics space shot are already in the range where anyone anywhere near ground zero is getting flash-blinded, and if it lasts more than a blink, you’re into severe burns / ignition territory. Even “only moonlight-bright” at 700–1,100 km distance implies daylight-to-multi-sun brightness close to the source.

光(ひかり) は とても 強(つよ)い — The light is very strong.
人(ひと) は 目(め) が いたく なる — People’s eyes will hurt.

What “12–20 degrees of Earth” means in kilometers

Earth’s radius (R \approx 6{,}371\ \text{km}).

An arc that spans (\theta) degrees along the circumference corresponds to length: [ L \approx 2\pi R \cdot \frac{\theta}{360} ]

Visually, that’s “half a continent glowing.”

A clean “bare minimum” model: one point light source lighting a huge area

If the glow is caused by one source and the bright region looks big because that light is illuminating/scattering across the atmosphere/ground, then a useful “minimum” is:

For a point source, illuminance falls roughly as: [ E(r) = \frac{I}{r^2} ] So the needed luminous intensity (≈ “candlepower,” in candela) is: [ I = E(r), r^2 ]

Numbers (order-of-magnitude, but anchored)

Take r = 700 km = 7\times 10^5 m (the 12°-ish case):

For r = 1,100 km (20°-ish), multiply those by ((1.1/0.7)^2 \approx 2.47).

Those are already absurdly high intensities for a single source producing a continent-scale glow.

What that does to someone “near ground zero”

Use the same inverse-square logic to see how brutal it gets close in. If you built the light to be 1 lux at 700 km, then at:

Now scale it:

Important reality check: “light only” is a cheat

In real explosions, the thing that kills you is usually not “visible light” by itself:

So if fiction depicts only a pretty glow with limited collateral, that implies a weird energy source that radiates mostly in visible and couples weakly to air, which is basically “magic laser physics.”

Third option the shots are actually implying

A lot of those Earth shots are not “a point source lighting a 1,000 km radius.” They’re implicitly one of these, which changes the energy story:

1) High-altitude event (upper atmosphere)

A detonation/phenomenon at very high altitude can make a huge glowing footprint because it’s lighting up thin air over a wide area. Still catastrophic, but the “single point on the ground” model overstates ground irradiance.

2) Orbital/space-side light shining onto Earth

If the source is in space (or above most of the atmosphere) and beaming downward, you can paint a huge patch more “efficiently” and it will look dramatic from far away. Ground zero is still cooked if it’s bright enough to read from space.

3) It’s just an artistic exposure gag

Many shots cheat camera exposure: the glow is “visible” because the scene is graded to show it, not because it’s physically plausible at that angular size.

Bottom line

If you insist on: single source, continent-scale glow, and visibly bright from space, the minimum intensity needed is already so large that anyone within tens of kilometers is dealing with blinding light at best, and if it lasts longer than a flash, you’re quickly in burn/ignition territory.

M: Even if you're right about the likely sources, in this case, it was triggered by watching the recent episode of Sailor Moon Abridged, in which some sort of alien queen gets vaporized by the power of love or whatever the hell was going on there. But it ends up with a shot of basically the entire North Pole seeming to have a minor detonation that's visible from space. Now, of course, it's supposed to be, you know, kind of fictional pseudoscience and all that. I was just wondering what the effect would be, even if it was just light and not implied to have been caused by any kind of explosion. And what you're telling me is that if you were at ground zero for something like that, even if it was just light being generated, that that light would likely be enough to at least cause serious injuries.

G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: [Non-text content: reasoning_recap; content_type=reasoning_recap]

G: Yes. If you keep the “visible from space over a North-Pole-sized patch” visual and insist it’s coming from one source, then even “just light” implies injury-grade irradiance anywhere remotely near the source.

光(ひかり) だけ でも 人(ひと) を こわす — Even light alone can hurt people.
近(ちか)い と 目(め) が やける — Up close, eyes can burn.

Why “just light” is still dangerous

There are two separate hazards:

1) Eye damage from brightness (retina hazard)

If something is bright enough to make a huge patch of Earth look like it’s glowing in a space shot, then at ground ranges it’s typically in the regime of:

You don’t need “heat ray” levels for this; you just need insanely high luminance in the source direction.

2) Skin/thermal damage from radiant power (heat hazard)

Visible light is only part of the radiated energy for any realistic emitter. Even an unrealistically “visible-heavy” source still dumps real power into you. If it lasts longer than a blink, you start stacking up dose:

The key lever is duration

A lot of animation implies a momentary flare. That matters.

What “ground zero” looks like under the light-only fantasy

Assuming line-of-sight and not hiding behind terrain/buildings:

One clean statement that matches your question

If the show depicts something like “the whole North Pole lit up enough to be obvious from orbit,” then a person at ground zero is almost certainly getting serious eye injury, and burn injury becomes likely if the effect lasts more than a brief flash, even if you forbid blast, shockwave, radiation, and debris.

That’s the consequence of the geometry: to make a huge area look lit from far away, the source has to be so bright that inverse-square falloff makes nearby exposure brutal.

M: has anyone ever built or even just designed something that could possibly create that level of radiance? By which I mean only radiance, you know, I'm not talking about any kind of nuclear attack or anything like that where devastation is the intent. I mean just either created or at least hypothesized how one would go about creating that degree of radiance. The reason why I'm saying hypothesized is because I'm not sure what anything like that would be useful for, so building it likely would be at best a really big money sink with no purpose. But it's also the kind of thing that if someone had a clever idea, they probably would want to at least lay claim to the mechanism behind it, even if they weren't the one to build it.

G: Short answer: yes, but only in very constrained, non-Earth-scale ways—and whenever people seriously sketch something that could reach that kind of radiance, it immediately runs into energy supply, heat disposal, and eye-melting side effects that make it useless outside labs, space concepts, or fiction.

Long answer, broken cleanly.


TLDR

Humans have built devices with locally comparable radiance (brightness per unit area) to what you’re talking about—but only:

No one has designed anything that produces continent-scale visible radiance in atmosphere without it immediately becoming destructive, pointless, or indistinguishable from a weapon.

光(ひかり) は つくれる — Light can be made.
でも 地球(ちきゅう) を てらす の は むり — But lighting the Earth is impossible (for us).


Things that already reach absurd radiance (but not your scenario)

1. High-power lasers (real, built)

Examples:

They can exceed solar surface brightness at the focal spot.

Why this doesn’t count

Lasers win on peak radiance, lose instantly on area.


2. Z-pinch / pulsed-power machines (real, built)

Example: Sandia’s Z-Machine.

Why this doesn’t count

This is closer to “flashbulb apocalypse physics.”


3. Synchrotrons / free-electron lasers (real, built)

These are arguably the most purely radiative machines humanity has.

Why this doesn’t count

They are precision scalpels, not floodlights.


Things that are seriously hypothesized (but not built)

4. Orbital solar reflectors / concentrators

People have seriously proposed:

These are real papers, real patents.

Hard limit To make a region visibly glow from space:

The mirror area required is astronomical, and the ground result is still… daylight. Nothing cinematic.


5. Power-beaming concepts (microwave / laser)

Often discussed for space solar power.

Why this fails your case


The core reason this stops being useful

This is the key insight you’re circling:

Radiance at that scale has no civilian use.

Light is only “useful” insofar as it:

Once you exceed daylight by orders of magnitude:

So any device whose primary feature is “enormous visible radiance” immediately:

There’s no middle ground where it’s:

“harmless, useful, continent-bright light”


Why fiction keeps doing it anyway

Because it feels like a clean abstraction:

But light is energy delivery.
At planetary scales, energy delivery is violence unless tightly controlled.

So when Sailor Moon Abridged nukes the North Pole with “love light,” the physics translation is:

“An event that, if real, would blind half the Arctic and hospitalize anyone nearby—even if nothing else happened.”


Bottom line

Which is exactly why it lives so comfortably in anime, comics, and magical-girl finales.