Silverhawk, by your logic you're suggesting that somewhere with a Cat III approach to both sides of a short runway, with all the facilities associated with it, that is also known for really bad weather; is safer then a 2 mile runway in east Europe somewhere with CAVOK wx 99% of the year, with just a set of PAPI at the end of the runway.
One could also argue that an airfield with all the facilities you mention, would be an airfield below some very busy airspace. Is it therefore true that busy airspace is safer then less congested airspace??
I don't know the answers, don't suppose anyone does, but to simply state that an airfield with more facilities is safer then on with very few, is simply not true. If it were true everyone would think that landing in Leeds for example is easier then say Marrakesh (no radar control).