Is it sometimes necessary to destroy something in order to save it?
What are 3 specific modern examples of the destruction of something things to save other things.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some cities have torn down sections of development that has been vacated and replaced those sections with "green space" in an act effectively destoying development (and a certain notion of "progress") to save a local ecology, a local landscape, etc.
Looking into this idea, there are several articles that come up on a search. Here is a link to an example of this kind of municipal action from Pasadena, California:
Are you asking about destroying something to save itself or about "the destruction of something things to save other things?"
As far as destroying something in order to save it, I really think that is a contradiction in terms. If you destroy something, you are by definition not saving it. I do not think there is any example where this can truly happen.