how easy would it be for the us government to crush a popular uprising?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 15
Benson and Weber cite Abraham Lincoln's executive actions during the Civil War and Dwight Eisenhower's 1957 intervention in Little Rock, Arkansas as precedents for the executive use of force in crushing a rebellion. The President would be able to mobilize the military and Department of Homeland Security to recapture a secessionist city and restore the elected government.
The government would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to form a response.

From Title 10 US Code the President may use the militia or Armed Forces to:
§ 331 – Suppress an insurrection against a State government at the request of the Legislature or, if not in session, the Governor.
§ 332 – Suppress unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the U.S.
§ 333 – Suppress insurrection or domestic violence if it (1) hinders the execution of the laws to the extent that a part or class of citizens are deprived of Constitutional rights and the State is unable or refuses to protect those rights or (2) obstructs the execution of any Federal law or impedes the course of justice under Federal laws.)
The Insurrection Act governs the roles of the military, local law enforcement, and civilian leadership inside the U.S. as this type of scenario plays 

It depends on whether the other side is hampered with a failed slave economy. If not, then perhaps more than 4 years.
easy
--> @Greyparrot
hm lets assume it is a state capitalist economy like china the state can run things well  as long as it makes some tolerance for the market and incentive, peole are greedy you let them make money and pow! propserity the secret is to throttle that engine so it doesnt destroy everythng around it
--> @billbatard
Let's assume many poor people are not only greedy, but jealous.
--> @Greyparrot
i have thought on this and i think this is a mere taunt, have you ever studied Friedrich Nietzsche Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, particularly in the first essay of his book, On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality". Master morality values pride and power, while slave morality values things like kindness, empathy, and sympathy. Master morality weighs actions on good or bad consequences (i. e., classical virtues and vices, consequentialism), unlike slave morality, which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions (e. g., Christian virtues and vices, Kantian deontology).
For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture, meaning that a culture's language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two moral structures (see valuation). you can learn a lot from Nietzsche .. the rich are rich because they take power and to a certain extent i agree with this if people let themselves be enslaved out of cowardice they deserve to live as slaves i wont i refuse i wont comply, if you wont negiotiate and share power and wealth as you should as you should, i will gladly destroy you rape you wife and make you watch eat your kids and take all of your shit and claim it as mine, i'd divide it up with the poor folks but thats  just the way i roll,  i'm way beyond jealous, i want the rich dead and i want to make them suffer before i remove them from the planet

--> @Greyparrot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NkcRllnmFo i have no respect for anyone who would accept being on the bottom
--> @billbatard
Let's assume many poor people are not only greedy, but jealous.

Is it virtuous solely due to their lack of power?
--> @Greyparrot
you assume, that is where you fail , i look at history people used to just take being on the bottom, then came the french revolution for the most part life for the common man has gotten a lot better, fighting back pays off, thats all i am saying we dont take it anymore so you give it up or we burn it down motive isnt even in play we wont stop is your life really worth a pile of trinkets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3AbMUQXft4&t=386s let the bodies hit the floor some will die but some will live  we wont take it any more and you dont deserve what you have that isnt jealousy it s far worse it is rage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47E2tfK5QAg
--> @Greyparrot
lack of power no we have power we just dont know ithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47E2tfK5QAg
--> @billbatard
Popular uprisings are usually stared by nut jobs.
So just take out the nut jobs.

And how likely is it that the U.S. populace would be so inclined to popularly uprise.
Most sane people are not interested in popular uprisings these days anyway. They're far too engrossed in their mobile devices.

So stick a burger on the barbecue and grab yourself another beer.
And calm that testosterone down in a manner that seems appropriate.

--> @billbatard
Laws are just paper. When you look at successful revolutions, like the French one or the Bolshevik ones, or the Confederacy, these all involved the military itself fragmenting and fighting amongst itself. Assuming that the US would be bringing its whole military might to bear against rowdy civilians is dumb. Also, there is a difference between a regional secession, like American Civil War, and a popular uprising fueled by military deserters, which is what toppled the Bourbons and the Romanovs. Once the existing power structure in France crumbled Napoleon turned the Royalists' own guns against them, firing grapeshot into the crowd and decimating any attempt to undermine the new Republic.
--> @ResurgetExFavilla
how was the confederacy a successful revolution? we crushed them 103 ovi my ggg matt sands(zenz) helped burn atlanta to the ground, in the end we destroyed them utterly
--> @ResurgetExFavilla
god i admired Napoleon
--> @billbatard
Popular uprisings are only popular for as long as they are popular.

Or for as long as popular leaders don't exceed their own and inevitably their followers limitations.

Napoleon and Adolph spring to mind.