So it's not a battle of 23rd versus 24th centuries. I think it's prime universe versus the last 2 films. There's been a lot of destruction in JJ Abrams universe and I don't see positive outcomes from that. I think it hurts the franchise that we can't do a story that doesn't involve a galactic war.
There was a hell of a lot of destruction in TOS too - Nomad sterilized several entire worlds before reaching the Enterprise. The Doomsday Machine wiped out at least one solar system, M-5 killed the entire 400+ crew of a starship, V'Ger had digitized hundreds of solar systems.
We saw war in the vast bulk of DS9 (which only ended because of an attempted genocide) and 1/4 of ENT (which began the mass murder of 7 million humans) and were told of devastating off-screen wars in TOS (the Eugenics Wars, WWIII and the more recent war against the Romulans) and TNG (the Cardassians). The threat of future war drove the plots of movies III, VI and X. FC picked up shortly after a war which killed millions.
Add to that, it was Romulus Prime (and presumably Remus) which was destroyed in ST'09, accounting for at least half the mass destruction in that movie.
So I say again, all Trek Prime is is a backstory. The difference between Kronos being the place where Worf fought a political battle with the Duras family vs. the place where Kirk went to find Khan. Or Kirk's Enterprise being the one which visited K-7 and got infested with Tribbles or the one which saved the planet Nibiru. All the planets and species are the same, it's just change in what happens to them. Does that really matter any more than the style of the new stories being told?