I think the originally posted article is fair, as it notes that > An aircraft can land without brakes, as during landing most of the work of stopping a commerc

I think the originally posted article is fair, as it notes that > An aircraft can land without brakes, as during landing most of the work of stopping a commercial aircraft is done through the use of thrust reversers. However, landing without the aid of brakes will significantly increase the amount of runway an aircraft uses on landing. Brakes are also necessary for aborting takeoffs, through the use of Auto Brakes, which automatically activate should pilots decide to abort a takeoff for whatever reason. The risk is clear: takeoffs will be significantly more dangerous to abort and runway overruns will be more likely, but this doesn't immediately halt aviation and is a more or less necessary step when the brake parts cannot be obtained. Your polemic reaction is much closer to feeling like propaganda than the original article, in my opinion.