There's also always a potential to survive an armlock or choke. Look at GSP vs Hardy or Jones vs Belfort. In old school judo you were supposed to take that chance because sometimes it paid off.
Its a question of risk to reward. The idea that tapping to strikes was wrong was based on the medical knowledge of half a century ago, when it was felt that there was little risk in being hit in the head when you were blacking out. Seriously, ten year old boys would be knocked out in football or hockey, revived and sent back into the game a minute later because no one knew there were long term consequences. Now we know better, and in fact it turns out that its more dangerous to be hit in the head when you're already concussed than to have a broken arm. That is why several national medical associations want to ban boxing and MMA, but none want to ban BJJ or judo.
People who think tapping to strikes is worse than tapping to chokes or arm bars are twenty years out of date in their medical knowledge. There's always a chance to escape in both striking and submissions. Sometimes it works (Hardy vs GSP), sometimes it doesn't (like BIg Nog against Mir). But the risk is much bigger with strikes than with submissions, which is why doctors want to ban boxing and MMA but not judo or BJJ.
Ultimately, fighters know (or are supposed to know) when they can't escape. That's true for both grappling and striking. Leaving either to the expertise of the ref can leave you with a broken arm or severe neurological damage -- and the neurological damage is far worse in both short term and long term. Maybe if refs were better fighters wouldn't have to tap to either, they could let the refs decide. But with current refs a smart fighter will tap to either submissions or strikes, because the refs are likely to get it wrong.
