Modelling catastrophic component failure
If you'd do something like that, you'd have to calculate, automatically, the voltages and currents through the circuit, then add their own physical limitations, such as thermal resistance, air flow, etc. Now imagine you have a 1000 elements schematic. The matrix will be "yuge" and, in most of the cases, to avoid waiting for disk writes, you'd make use of the .save command, to selectively save only the desired components. If you want power dissipation (automatically needed for any thermal blow-up simulator), that command becomes useless. Now go a bit further and try to imagine those 1000 elements being, all inside a chip -- you'd have to calculate and save everything. I can already hear future generations of CPUs hiding from the shelves.

All this can be avoided by some extra attention that the user has to pay when simulating. I think it's not only fair, but a comodity (years ago they did simulations on paper, and they worked...), and wanting more and more comodity can lead to down-right lazyness. Wait until you see how whole schematics blow up because "designers" will complain that the colour of their device was orange, not purple, and they couldn't have known that the element would blow up based on the colour... not to mention the elaborate excuses, because this is where you'd be getting at -- motivation of formulating excuses, instead of developing a bit of extra attention. Well, it sounds more like a rant, and I suppose there is some of that, inside there, but it's also what I believe: features like these might seem helpful, but if they are , it's only for a (very) short term, the long term tends to bury them in negative outcomes.