Historically, Star Trek has been all about positive outcomes against all odds, so why was Vulcan destroyed as a plot line?
The Enterprise (Federation) usually always saves worlds against all the odds, even if there are very great losses along the way. Surely the loss of Vulcan must be viewed as a failure.
This plot device of allowing Vulcan to perish seems to go against Star Trek precedence, especially as the Federation is about preservation.
With the Borg, Q intervenes to warn the Federation. Earth ends up being saved against all odds (a positive outcome), albeit at great suffering and losses. In Star Trek Generations, Picard and Kirk do the same - they reverse an apocalypse. There are many similar examples throughout all series of pulling the mythical rabbit out of the hat.
Given this history, have the movie makers stated why they destroyed Vulcan as a plot device?
There have been many useful ideas presented in comments and answer thus far. They revolve around drama device explanations and doing something new.
Perhaps what I was also considering was there an allegory like in Herman Melville’s works.
Was JJ Abrams really just making drama with this element of the story or was he trying to say something more with the annihilation of Vulcan?
It has been suggested - Raditz_35 very popular comment - that this was perhaps symbolic "The destruction of Vulcan is symbolic for the end of logic, reason and science as the main driving forces of the franchise."
Certainly the research of Richard Dawkins at the time (I'm not sympathetic of all his ideas BTW) that people are increasingly less interested in the rational would give some credence to not keeping logic, reason and science as the main driving forces of the franchise. Why bother with something people are not interested in any more. I suppose back in sixties the promises of science to solve all manner of problems seemed within reach.
Any further symbolic explanation welcome.