Why aren't virtual destructors enforced for a base class

Destructors aren't virtual by default to not hurt when its not needed, which is fine.

But in case of a base class derived class scenario, is there any use case for not having a virtual destructor? If not could it be possible (does it make sense) for the compiler to complain if a class derives from a base class which has a public non virtual destructor (or no destructor) defined. And not just warn about it.