There's no point in having a right to strike if you aren't going to use it in the event of a dispute that involves defending a fundamental position of the union/members. If they'd all have just accepted a GA deal, striking in future would have been irrelevant anyway.
It's easy to have a more 'responsible attitude towards strikes' when you're ASLEF, with guaranteed long term job security for your members, near absolute power in most TOC, merely asked by fearful management to name your price for taking on any responsibilities they've been able to prise off other grades... Let's see how reasonable you think ASLEF are when the new Deep Tube Upgrade Programme stock comes about.
Some interesting points here.
I agree that there's no point in having a right to strike if you aren't prepared to use it (see "nuclear deterrent"), but they've achieved substantial concessions through its use already, ie safety critical guards on all trains, which guarantees jobs and status.
Re ASLEF, I agree to an extent, although I'd also argue that RMT members also have far greater job security than most workers outside the rail industry. Strike for a month at many companies and there wouldn't be a company left to go back to. Then there's the Liverpool dockers and the London bus workers in the 1950s who striked themselves out of jobs. Of course, this will never happen on today's railways as UK taxpayers, most of whom never use trains, will be there to prop up the railways in seemingly all circumstances. If the strikes persist the only adverse impact I can see is some the proposed off-peak frequency enhancements being shelved, but that doesn't affect existing staff.
Regarding the Deep Tube Upgrade Programme, any pretence of driverless operation went with the last mayor. The trains aren't even going to be ATO as the Piccadilly line signalling upgrade has been cancelled due to lack of funding.